Yes, you are responsible for the knock-on effects of your criminal actions, but there’s a line.
For instance suppose you aimed to commit tax fraud by understating your company’s profits in the accounting system. Your limited partner sees those fake numbers, believes they are real, believes this means essential cancer treatments are unaffordable, and commits suicide rather than face a painful and slow death. Did you commit murder? No, courts will generally say not, because the causality chain is simply too weak, too improbable, too Rube Goldberg. Murder is not a foreseeable knock-on effect of tax fraud.
However, if you’re robbing a party store, and shoot a display merely to scare the clerk, and unbeknownst a child was hiding behind the display, that’s murder because it was the product of a serious crime.
The reasoning is that anytime there’s an armed robbery, while murder is not the objective, a killing is a foreseeable risk; and an armed robber reasonably ought to know that and thus is responsible when mayhem does occur. After all, the armed robber had the option to eliminate that risk by not doing an armed robbery.
There’s a parallel concept in civil law, called “Eggshell Skull”: where if your action against someone is a tort, but has knock-on effects you couldn’t possibly imagine... you are still liable for them. There was a famous case where a child kicked another child in class; routine stuff. But
It turned out that the victim had an unknown microbial condition that was irritated, and resulted in him entirely losing the use of his leg. No one could have predicted the level of injury. Nevertheless, the court found that the kicking was unlawful because it violated the "order and decorum of the classroom", and the perpetrator was therefore fully liable for the injury.
Yeah. Don’t kick people in class.