If he's an official representitive of the comapny he is the authorisation - we're not talking about the janitor here, we're talking about people with fiduciary responsibility between themselves and the company.
A lone wolf acting alone and falsifying documents is entirely different to a direct representative who is authorised to act on behalf of a company acting in bad faith.
Otherwise company officials are free to do henious crimes in the name of and on behalf of a company with no blowback on the company when those actions go pear shaped and get exposed.
Commanders are responsible for the actions of their men, companies are responsible for the actions of their principals.
A cook is a bad analogy for the rank held by the people involved. It's more like "son of the estate owner" or "head guard", except it's both of them because it was multiple execs. So, yes, the estate owner should be held accountable. And in most civilized societies, he or she would be.
A lone wolf acting alone and falsifying documents is entirely different to a direct representative who is authorised to act on behalf of a company acting in bad faith.
Otherwise company officials are free to do henious crimes in the name of and on behalf of a company with no blowback on the company when those actions go pear shaped and get exposed.
Commanders are responsible for the actions of their men, companies are responsible for the actions of their principals.