Here is a general principle: If there is no right to X, then destroying X can't violate anyone's rights. Here is a moral claim: There is no right to profit from the exploitation of oppressed people. If we accept that premise, then from the general principle it follows that destroying the profits of exploitation can't violate anyone's rights. Finally, here is an empirical claim: Some profits of some corporations (e.g. Walmart, Nike) come from the exploitation of oppressed people (e.g. sweatshop labor in Honduras and Indonesia). If this last claim is true, it follows that the destruction of some property of some corporations is permissible.
It cannot happen that the only thing wrong with an argument is that the conclusion is false. If we want to reject a conclusion, we must find an error in its rationale: an invalid inference or false proposition. In the above argument, where is the error? The general principle is tautological. The moral claim is humanitarian, and the empirical one is documented. The permissibility of some vandalism is therefore proven. Government may not forbid the permissible. Therefore, the police must ignore some vandalism against some corporations.
QED