He does make a good point though. Holding the corporation liable for outright criminal action, but not the individuals who actually give the order, means there is little reason not to take the risk and break the law. If the executive doesn't get caught, they make a ton of money for the company and can enjoy the resulting bonuses and personal wealth. If they do get caught, no big deal - the company pays a fine (which is often less than the money gained by the criminal action) and they carry on working.
It also creates the sort of class difference that fuels resentment: The lower-income groups see how easily those with wealth and corporate connections can get away with actions that the ordinary person would be jailed for, and this leads to a lot of "fight the corporations!" and "We are the ninety-nine percent!" protests.
I am not sure quite what the solution for this is, but the current approach is far from ideal.