That sure is an interesting take from someone with "anarchist" in their username. IMHO corruption is any time you use power/influence/station in order to skew the normal well-behaved channels of governance (cybernetics) for personal gain. Any system with hierarchy can have corruption. Bernie Madoff was an example of illegal, private industry corruption.
I'm not fond of that definition for a couple of reasons:
1. praxeologically, all individuals act for personal gain, which is subjective in nature;
2. most private corporations don't have a well-defined governance (aside from the occasional constitution), specially ones that rely on gift/favor-based economies, such as seen in certain tribes. Governments tend to be an exception due their unique legal nature.
Bernie Madoff's case can best described as a Ponzi scheme, a form of massive fraud scheme.
In a sibling comment, I realized that "corruption" isn't a defined crime in most jurisdictions, aside from Brazil, for some reason, so it's kind of wrong of me to say that corruption is legally defined.
Still, my particular peeve here is the implication of immoral conduct without context on LinkedIn's own rules.