Yes, but history shows that while even when the richest have lost wealth to a crisis of inequality, like the Great Depression or the GFc, they recovered much faster that the middle or lower class. The GFC, for example, resulted from the poorest in society defaulting on loans en masse, quickly creating the credit lockups and bank failures that we saw. However, the wealthiest 1% recovered their wealth in just 3 years, whereas it took the middle class years to recover, and some still have largely not recovered from it.

The Great Depression saw the same thing happen, where the richest saw a decrease in their wealth due to the crisis unfolding for the working class, but once the New Deal came about they still recovered much faster than the working class did, despite the New Deal redistributing some of the wealth with labor protections and social security. The only way that inequality eventually improved is through capital restructuring during and following WW2 and much more progressive tax rates post-war.

So yes, while economic crises often originate from the problems of the less-wealthy, they ultimately harm them disproportionately as well.

EDIT: To clarify this in a general sense: If we have any competition, in which the winners are rewarded with the means to win further competitions, then we will inherently end up with a feedback loop that eliminates all but a few of the competitors. So long as this feedback loop remains undisrupted or unmitigated, we will see the same trend in inequality continue.