In this case, another commenter suggests it's because of the number of people employed. But I don't see why they can't punish everyone proved to be personally r

In this case, another commenter suggests it's because of the number of people employed. But I don't see why they can't punish everyone proved to be personally responsible (and perhaps the leadership wants to move people who are suspected but can't be proved deserving of criminal charges). And then at worst the assets (including the supply chain, infrastructure and all the employees required to operate it all) can continue under different ownership, but maybe mostly new leadership, or whatever. Surely some impact to the innocent still, but not nearly as much and justice is still done as much as can be proved. I don't think this problem is unique to private corporations, though. If government projects blow through their budget and achieve almost nothing, they're usually able to get more funding, because if you don't give them more funding, "who would build the roads"? If an agency keeps having corruption issues, there's often a scapegoat or a review board put in place until the PR shitstorm blows over, and then nothing really changes. Very rarely will the general consensus be, "maybe giving people this much power and authority on this issue just does more harm than good".