That depends on the jurisdiction of a court in which litigation is potentially taken against dooglus, as well as the tort laws in such jurisdiction, however I would err on the side of "yes".

The allegation in the OP is that dooglus (helped) create a product that was designed to ultimately steal from others. This means that anytime any ponzi operator had previously used his script to steal money from others, that he would likely be considered to be an accomplice to such theft. According to this, there is no distinction between an accomplice and the person who actually commits the tort, although it is likely that the accomplice would not be liable for 100% of the damages.

A Gun Manufacturer can potentially (Page 2, last paragraph), be held liable if they knowingly sell a gun to someone they know will subsequently use said gun to commit a crime of violence (or a drug trafficking crime).

A bartender can be potentially held liable if s/he knowingly (or should have known) servers a drink to a drunk person, and said drunk person subsequently kills someone while driving while still drunk.

Both of the above examples are very similar to dooglus creating a product whose only potential use is to eventually scam people.

If an ISIS terrorist was trying to get a bomb to explode, but couldn't and you fixed their mistake by telling them to "switch the green and the red wires" which would get the bomb to work properly then you would most likely be arrested for supporting a terrorist organization (or something similar thereof), and I don't think very many people would be against your arrest if you did that. I am not saying that what you did is comparable to supporting ISIS, however the principle remains the same.