This should have been put into the hands of a liquidator and a police report filed months ago.  But...Bitcoin isn't an excuse - computer intrusions which delete or otherwise damage critical data are illegal in and of themselves and liquidators are perfectly capable of selling assets to pay creditors (after having first secured the assets).  The only real question is what entity should have filed for insolvency, and that's not clear even now. 

This whole process should be turned over to a liquidator/administrator now - it's the only way there's going to be a thorough and transparent accounting of the remaining assets and a public examination of what happened in the months leading up to the insolvency.  NZ insolvency law allows for a liquidator to apply to have their fees paid out of a fund specifically set aside for that purpose so that creditors are not unfairly disadvantaged by liquidator fees.

It is absurd that law enforcement is not being involved in investigating these thefts.  There's no financial institution or company which would not report such large thefts to law enforcement even if they chose not to make those losses public.  The "let's just put it behind us and move forward" attitude only encourages more attempts at theft.  People have been prosecuted for stealing virtual furniture on Habbo Hotel, FFS.  Anonymous members were prosecuted for the HB Gary intrusion (no data or funds were lost).  And yet Bitcoin businesses remain reluctant to involve law enforcement even when intrusions cause a significant loss of user funds.  Why the hell wouldn't you want to see someone prosecuted for those thefts?

Hand the claims process over to a liquidator and the investigation process over to law enforcement - it's the only way that either has a chance of being done competently.

FWIW, I do believe that Amir, Patrick and Donald probably didn't know what they were getting into.  A month simply isn't enough time to do adequate due diligence when you're setting up multiple entities which have varying degrees of liability and the nominal owners are not actually running the business (the reason Tihan keeps repeating that his role was hands off is because he'd lose safe harbour protection from liability if he took part in the day to day running of the company).