But it probably had no idea that it was part of a bribe. How could it?

This article discusses the two circumstances under which US states may attribute criminal liability to a corporation: https://law.jrank.org/pages/744/Corporate-Criminal-Responsib...

Either of these standards would probably apply to a head of security who commits the crime as part of seeking concealed carry permits for an Apple security team.

CCW is the wrong kind of permit for armed employment. There's a different kind for that. The CCWs would only benefit the individuals, not the company.

Maybe the news article was being informal, or maybe they specifically wanted to carry concealed and not open. It still seems like whatever was being requested was on behalf of the security team he was overseeing as his primary job duty at Apple.

It's possible the journalist was wrong, but I believe the BSIS issues the professional license, not the sherriff. Open or concealed doesn't matter when it's for armed employment - the license from BSIS is what's needed. So it seems this was for personal CCW.

Edit: Never mind. CA is super stupid and requires a state license to carry a firearm for employment but would then also require a license from the sheriff to conceal it.

As discussed in the other subthread, CCW and BSIS would both be needed for concealed carry executive protection in California.

Hence my comment about not minding my comment and CA being stupid.

Who would have to know before you would consider "the company" as knowing it? This was a chief executive doing it

Head security guard is not exactly a ‘chief executive’.

And head security guard is very different from head of security. The laws attributing liability to the company don't only apply to actions of chief executive - Apple head of security would definitely qualify.

I'd say if the company was benefiting instead of just the individuals.

This was to indeed benefit Apple, by arming their security team.

Arming someone for employment is under a different permit from the CCW listed in the story. CCWs would not benefit Apple.

It absolutely benefits them. Nearly all executive protection teams are concealing. There is no public concealed carry of firearms in CA outside your property without a CCW. There is no parallel professional license that will allow you to do so in public. This is part of what lead to this weird situation for Apple.

Concealed or exposed, you need a BSIS license as an armed guard (executive protection) in CA.

No one is debating that, and the BSIS standards are absurdly low and they are available to everyone. There is no taint in the process for BSIS issuance that has been raised.

And this article isn't about bribing for BSIS licenses, it's about bribing for CCWs. So if the BSIS license is the one needed for professional carry, the CCW is moot from the company's perspective.

Edit: Never mind. CA is super stupid.