Users accusing Aurumexchange of TOS break are indirectly supporting the hypothesis that Zhou Tong is the hacker.
If Zhou Tong is the hacker, then Aurumexchange released information of a customer.
If Zhou Tong is NOT the hacker, them Aurumexchange released information of an unknown person.
This makes no sense at all.
Consider this hypothetical: You open an account with some service. I hack your account and use the service to buy 1,000 copies of Mein Kampf which I leave on the doorsteps of Holocaust survivors. There's a public outcry over this event and the purchase is investigated. The service publicly announces that your account was used to buy those 1,000 copies of Mein Kampf, which embarrasses you. You receive death threats, harassment, and so on. When you respond that you didn't buy them and that someone else must have hacked your account, does that let the service off the hook for the privacy violation? After all, it wasn't your transaction.
I do not feel embarrassed to be associated with Adolf Hitler historical character.
I do not support fictional Jewish storytelling.
I do not care about threats made in Internet forums.
Then I would not even "respond" for whatever enquires would be made regarding your hypothetical event.