If your sole qualification for making statements about US law is the fact that you have an opinion about US law, you might want to STFU before you make a fool of yourself to a greater extent.
iCEBREAKER: Expressed an opinion about US law that was soon proven to be
correct.
blakdawg: Expressed an opinion about US law that was soon proven to be
incorrect.
So dawg, who needed to STFU? Oh yes, it was you!
So dawg, who made a fool of themselves to a great extent? Again, it was you!
Nothing has been proven. I suspect that Roman's actions indicate that he will absorb the BTC losses himself, or investors/lenders will provide him with funds to do so. I suspect (but do not know) that Roman has talked to one or more attorneys, hopefully he'll be smart enough to keep his mouth shut about what they told him so that he won't waive the attorney/client privilege.
Whether or not the Fifth Amendment controls the behavior of private individuals was never in question - it does not, and never has. Any claim to the contrary reveals the maker as a buffoon. This is not an interesting question, or a close question, or even a question. It's basic constitutional law. Disputing it is like insisting that "2 + 2 = 5" or that the sun orbits the earth. You can shout and call names all you like - the harder you fight, the dumber you look.
But, I'll say this for you - you
are amusing, though you might want to give that "communist" thing a rest.