Shareholders are not innocent. It's their responsibility to bear, albeit limited, financial risk. It's therefore prudent for them to demand companies uphold legal and moral obligations, or move capital into ventures that will. Failure to do so means they are more likely to lose their investments.
Then they should have invested in companies that have stricter controls, or put their money somewhere safer w/ more transparency. That some investors are unsophisticated doesn't absolve them of liability.
All bets are off when we're talking about blatant violations of the law. Who's to say that "transparency" is even really transparent? What good are stricter controls when the people who are in charge of creating and enforcing them are the same people who are violating them?
My point is that this could happen with any company and is part of the risk of investing, but to imply that the shareholders should have just "demanded companies to uphold legal and moral obligations" is assigning more stupidity on the shareholders than deserved.
It usually goes without saying that shareholders expect the companies they're investing in to obey the law and not lie to them.
Like I said, this is part of the risk of investing. There's always a chance the company you are investing in is cooking their books, lying, etc..., but the risk exists with any company and there's not much you can really do to mitigate it.
