Defendant Laffal was the president of a corporation that operated a restaurant. It was alleged that prostitutes frequented the restaurant, picking up men there and returning them after a short time, thus making the restaurant an illegal “bawdy house” in violation of the state criminal law. Laffal argued that he could not be charged with operating a bawdy house because he was never present when any of the illegal acts took place and he did not even know they were going on. Was Laffal correct?