Quote from: TECSHARE on June 21, 2015, 11:51:40 AM

If the account was in fact hacked, then Quickseller, knowingly or otherwise sold stolen property. If he never had legal ownership of it to begin with, he has no right to keep the collected funds because there was no valid exchange. The rest of the argument is irrelevant.

Just a quick analogy for you for comparison...
http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/must-a-pawn-shop-return-stolen-property-to-its-owner/

He may or may not have known it was hacked, but as far as possession and the law are concerned it doesn't make any difference, he must return the property and the funds, and be more selective about accounts he buys in the future.

The account was not hacked, as BadBear confirmed here:

Quote from: BadBear on August 16, 2014, 02:59:03 PM

This is a perfect example of why I don't want to restore accounts (for the most part). While bayuo obviously did control the Zedicus account at one point, and is probably the original owner, there appears to be a pretty good reason he doesn't anymore (I won't elaborate for privacy reasons). Though there really is no way to be positive either way.

Exemplifies perfectly what I was saying the other day about signing addresses not being conclusive proof that the person signing *should* be in control of that account.

-snip-

Bayuo sold me the account, received money for it and then later claimed it was hacked so he would receive his account back and obviously get to keep the money he received from the sale. Just a pathetic scam attempt.