That's the line of reasoning CFOs used to avoid prosecution during financial scandals circa 2000. Why should the CFO be held responsible for fraud in the company's books? Why make the officer of the company who is responsible for the financials, responsible for the financials?
I personally can't understand how that argument flies, but it seems to work.
It's interesting to me that in Japan, resignations are much more common simply because there's a better understanding of where this thinking leads. The ONLY way to stop this behavior is to hold the folks at the top accountable, even if they may have been betrayed by their underlings. With great power comes great responsibility.
We all know that's not how it works here, but it's an interesting contrast. Culturally we like the 'win at all costs' guy, and tend to look the other way if the methods are distasteful.