Technically you own shares of a mutual fund, and the mutual fund owns the stock. Unless the mutual fund only owns its shares via ownership share in a bank, which owns a derivative which owns the 0.0015 shares.

Which is generally why responsibility stops with the board of directors, because there’s no way there was criminal intent through four layers of indirection. (Except shell companies, of course.)

Intent sure, but negligence?

Practically speaking, I'd expect the courts to round up the top 10 shareholders or something like that.

In principle though, I think partial ownership of a harmful company should expose you to some liability, whether or not the CEO listens to you.

That sounds like it would be a very strong incentive for investors to avoid potentially bad actors and instead favor non-criminal investments such as bonds. This is a feature.

So you do a convertible bond with a buy option that give you 90% of the company if it's successful and you still avoid risks and get all of the profit.

You should only get 0.0015 prison sentence then.