It's not the employees' job to make the company profitable.
No really, hear me out:
The company makes a contract with an employee. His or her skills and time in exchange for a salary.
Now your employee either holds up his side of the deal or not. If he or his business unit do not turn a profit, its one of several possible reasons. A they suck. B the product sucks. C the processes suck. D marketing sucks.
In all these cases, except A, it's management's job to recognize this and do something about it. And even in case of A, it's management's job to either get the employee in line or fire them.
Now what you define as "in line" is the crux here. If an employee has been given boundaries of his jobs that allow him to perform in a legal way without working himself to the ground and he decides that it would be easier to do something illegal instead and work less, then yes, that employee is responsible for his actions and he alone (to the point where his misconduct becomes glaringly obvious and management still does nothing).
However, if said employee cannot be reasonably expected to achieve management's demands without illegal or self-harming activity, then he should be held blameless, especially in an environment that favors employers.
When you have to fire over 5000 people for shady activity then it becomes kinda hard to argue for that relatively tightly defined case where the employee is to blame. Occam's razor, dear friends. Neither 5000 people independently falling to using illegal methods nor a criminal group forming in an environment where they could not organise themselves (they couldn't seek out like-minded people, they were hired by higher-ups) seems rather far-fetched.