For a corporation to be held criminally liable for the acts of an employee, the prosecutor does not have to prove: a. that the employee was acting within the scope of his/her employmentb. the employee was acting with the purpose of benefiting the corporationc. the act was imputed to the corporationd. the act is not punishable only by prison timee. that the employee was receiving a benefit from the criminal act

In vicarious criminal liability, an officer of a corporation may be held liable for the acts of an employee because, under this doctrine, the employee acted for the benefit of and in action under the officer. This authority and relationship allows a plaintiff to allege liability and wrongdoing to the officer, in addition to the culpable employee.  

i dont think so i think its more a lot of people i know failed the first time

explanation: