That's why there is such a huge gulf between US law and EU law: in the US, the letter of the law is all that matters, in the EU, where laws are a lot more ambiguously specified it is the spirit of the law that matters. So an EU executive could be found liable because the company violated the spirit of the law whereas a US executive would walk even though both companies would do the exact same thing. But once the letter of the law is violated - especially in so-called white collar crime - there is still no guarantee of a conviction because corporations have very large budgets to protect their execs and to try to find some legal loophole.
I'm (very well possibly because I'm European) more in favor of laws that are interpreted as to the spirit of the law, simply because it makes people reason from some level of goodwill rather than by trying to maximize the take by legal hair splitting.
This is very wrong. In common-law jurisdictions (which the U.S. is broadly-speaking one example of - some exceptions may apply which are not relevant here), judicial precedent is a key factor in interpreting "the letter of the law", which is not the case in continental/civil law. This means that a vaguely-written statute can still provide some meaningful legal certainty in the U.S., where precedent provides some commonly-understood and commonly-developed guidance to what "the spirit of the law" might be; whereas in civil law jurisdictions, overly vague or ambiguous laws can only result in judges and government officials exerting arbitrary power (and in fact this happens routinely!), with not even consistency over time (much less some even more consistent "spirit of the law"!) as a real check and constraint.