> The company who made the breakfast of a rapist should be charged with the crime?

The company is not literally investing in the endeavor of the rapist, the teacher is not literally investing in the outcome of the killer, investors/funders literally expect the outcome of the thing they invest in to continue without ambiguity. These are much less fitting than the drug-dealer analogy.

You still supported PM's activities, provided them a greater ability to sell more cigarettes with your investment, and reap profit from that activity. I don't see any insulation from support or culpability here.

I literally own tobacco company stock and accept that I am complicit in the sale of cigarettes, it's not much of a leap.