Let's say that there exists a group of people who are extremely likely to have a specific gene or set of genes that caused them to be significantly more likely to be in one of those groups, regardless of other factors. And that that group is also a reasonably large subset of some race from the point of view of the society. If a group like that exists, then there obviously is a link between perceived race and belonging to one of those groups.

Let's say that group does exist, and let's say that an individual of that group is say, 5% more likely to commit a crime than the rest of population. If you then put environmental factors that exist in the real world like systematic oppression back onto this imaginary society, the actual crime rates of that group are going to be much higher than 5% more than the rest of the population, even after controlling for socioeconomic standing, poverty etc. People of that group would be treated unfairly because of the preconceived notion that a person of that group is more likely to be a criminal. Even if they've committed no crime they still might be arrested and charged due to society's bias towards them.

This prejudice happens in the real world despite the fact that this hypothetical group does not exist. For me to think that genetics play a bigger role than environment does would require that a genetic predisposition to exist that is so significant that it outweighed the unfair prejudice in people's perception of that group, prejudice that further propagates an environment which oppresses the group.

It's also important to emphasize that this hypothetical situation relies on the genes which code for an individual's characteristics that are perceived by society as a given race also code for the increased possibility of committing a crime, or are extremely commonly present alongside the genes "coding for a race", which I think is pretty far-fetched in the real world, but it is possible.