What matters is the value derived from some prohibited activity relative to the fine/lawsuits resulting from that activity.
Let's say that Company A sells oranges, and uses some pesticide that isn't approved, and gets a fine for it.
Let's say that Company B sells apples, and improperly claimed that the apples were fresher than they were to grocery stores and is sued for that.
Let's say that Company A and Company B merge and form Company C. The value of Company C would be larger, but it would make no sense for either of the above two disincentives to be larger. Being part of Company C doesn't make engaging in bad behavior more-desirable than it does for when A and B were separate, and so the disincentives one establishes for bad behavior shouldn't grow either.