I don&#x27;t agree. People should not go to prison for crimes committed by others. We should still have to show each individual is guilty, including the executives. But I don&#x27;t think that would solve the problem anyway. Owners and shareholders will still be immune. They will simply hire figurehead executives to sign things and speak at events.<p>These people are financially motivated, so the punishment should be financial. Most criminals don&#x27;t think they are going to be caught anyway, so prison isn&#x27;t a disincentive. Financial punishment may not be a disincentive either (but I suspect for most shareholders it would), but it has the effect of reducing the efficacy of bad actors, leading to better outcomes overall.<p>The real problem is the fines are usually far outweighed by the profits from acting in this manner. Make the punishment an audit at the end of which they must pay the costs of the independent audit (whether done by private third party or government) as well as a multiplier on whatever profits were determined to stem from the elicit activity.