There is no lin. Corporate lawyers work in hundreds of cases during their career and you cannot say that company X is guilty because Y guy worked N years before in a guilty company. That's just insanely wrong, factually.
The headline does not say "company Z is guilty because Y guy worked N years before in a guilty company". That is in the body of the article, and again, that is what you have an issue with.
Again - a link is a link, regardless of whether or not it means anything. It is a connection between two entities; nothing more, nothing less. They touch each other, and that is literally what is happening here. That link can be anything - something interesting, or something not - but it remains a link regardless.
In this case, your point is, "That is a link, but I find that link weak and don't believe it means anything".
