Final answer:
Mr. Smith may be prosecuted if believed responsible for the false tax return filed by his treasurer. He could face charges like conspiracy or aiding and abetting, but could argue lack of knowledge as a defense. His best defense is likely to prove absence of knowledge or involvement in the act.
Step-by-step explanation:
Mr. Smith, as president of the XYZ Corporation, could face criminal prosecution if the government believes he was in some way responsible for the false income tax return filed by the treasurer. The likely charges he could face would depend on his level of direct or indirect involvement, as well as his knowledge of the actions taken by the treasurer. While lack of knowledge of the act committed by the treasurer (Option B) could serve as a defense, it is a contested area of law.
Ignorance of the actions of others is often not a defense in criminal law, especially in positions of responsibility or authority within a corporate structure (Option A). It is possible that he could be charged with aiding and abetting a crime if it is believed he in some way contributed to or facilitated it, even without direct involvement (Option C). However, Mr. Smith could argue that he had no direct involvement in the false filing and was unaware of it, which could potentially absolve him from liability if he can substantiate this claim (Option D).
In building a defense, Mr. Smith would likely focus on demonstrating that he neither had knowledge of nor involvement in the crimes committed by the treasurer, essentially challenging the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt his participation or criminal intent in the falsification of the company's tax returns.