No, corporations are contracts. They are pieces of paper. They have no natural rights under the law.
In the context of a bribe, a corporation is a person calling themselves a corporation. I don't see how the court can separate the brand name the person uses from the person committing the act of bribery.
In another context, like a bankruptcy trial, the corporation might be a piece of paper calling itself a person, having only the rights and accounntability of "corporate personhood" separate from the humans involved.
*accountability
They do separate, though. "Lifting the corporate veil" used to be limited to very rare circumstances, though the privileges are eroding.
That's how flunkies go to prison while managers, directors and shareholders are (mostly) free to do it again, barring unusual orders.
That's just it. Corporations are not people, because there are circumstances in the law that they beg to use in their defense that say that they are not. People can't pick and choose when to be considered a person and when not to be. So neither can corporations.
In the context of a bribe, it's not a corporation making the decision to sign the check, it's a person in some position of authority within that corporate structure. That person should be held accountable for that decision. Brand Names, Trademarks, those are all just contracts, information.
