ZhouTong wasn't paid employee compensation. He transferred ownership of the company in exchange for those funds. So the rules for employee compensation or bonus clawbacks wouldn't apply.

In any event, employee compensation clawbacks generally are only available for losses that were incurred prior to the payment of the compensation. The idea is that someone who misrepresents the profitability of a business shouldn't benefit from their misconduct by getting a bonus based on the inflated profits. Nothing like that seems to have happened in this case. In many countries (including the United States) you don't have to prove the employee was at fault. It's sufficient to show that the bonus was paid based on incorrect information.

As far as a non-employee clawback goes, generally you can't clawback funds from someone who gave something of comparable value for the funds received unless you can show wrongdoing on their part or the contract specifically permitted a clawback. It's very unlikely that ZhouTong's contract would have permitted a clawback for anything other than a materially significant misrepresentation or omission on his part. And there's no evidence so far, at least as I know, that ZhouTong did anything like that.

Of course, we probably don't know anything close to the full story yet.

However, anyone who got any money back from Bitcoinica should be aware that this money could be subject to clawbacks. Once Bitcoinica knew that they couldn't make full repayments, they had an obligation to prioritize their debts and protect the interests of other creditors. If they paid some people 100% of the money they held once they knew they couldn't pay back everyone, that could be subject to a clawback.