More generally, people have prejudices about what crime "looks like", which isn't an office, and there is a huge pro-business bias generally in the West based on the idea of "creating jobs".
I think it's just that groups with diffused responsibility get more latitude, because for a given act, who are you going to put in jail exactly? That turns out to be a hard question, especially when you consider not just the local consequences but the global ones. For instance, take a hard line "I'm putting the CEO/Secretary of X/Whatever the highest plausible person is in jail" stance and you just created an extraordinary incentive for pervasive, total micromanagement, and probably in the end worse results for society than even what we have now. It's a hard problem.
Could any criminal organization decide to incorporate and file taxes and get just a slap on the wrist and a fine for their drug trade, mugging, etc? Reminds me of HSBC's minor fine for laundering billions of drug dollars. Why do corporations get that kind of immunity?