This question is phrased as a legal question, which belongs on Law.SE. However, it seems as though the philosophical question you are getting at is whether you are responsible for your actions if someone else tells you to do it.
Obviously there's many opinions in philosophy about this, but the current prevailing opinion would be "yes, you are responsible for any action you do under your own free will, even if you are being asked to do so by someone else." This opinion is maintained solidly by the result of the Nuremberg trials, which made it very clear that a solider could not simply claim they were "following orders" and get off for crimes against humanity.
There is an exception for duress, which is when the person asking you to do something is sufficiently forceful that it is reasonable to say you had no freewill. For example, you are rarely considered responsible for actions done while a gun is held to your head, up to but not including murdering someone yourself.
The person doing the forcing is responsible for their actions, of course, but not automatically responsible for yours. They become responsible when it becomes clear that they took responsibility away. This is the basis for arguments regarding statutory rape. The idea is that it is too easy for someone older to take over a situation thoroughly enough that a younger person cannot be deemed responsible for their actions, because they simply didn't know better.
There are always grey areas. However, hopefully those cases will be enough to frame any future questions you might have about responsibility.