Quote from: gangplank on December 10, 2013, 08:32:23 AM

I think it's just to cover his ass so that when this ship sinks and people chase him, he'll be able to say he continued to pay divs via bitfunder as per the agreement and that if you have any problems, you need to take it up with them, not him.

*If* it comes to lawyering up - there are people in the same legal jurisdiction as Graet (Australia) with enough at stake and deep enough pockets to take this on.
Graeme Tee described it as a 'personal loan' - and said in effect that failure to pay would only happen as a result of bankruptcy.
Considering Graet is a director of Weexchange - there is a good case to be made that 'payment' via a system he should reasonably know is compromised/insolvent does not represent a valid resolution of those portions of the debt.
It would be sad to see lawyers involved, and I wouldn't wish bankruptcy on him - but when there are individuals owed hundreds of thousands of AUD equivalent value - I expect a failure to ultimately pay out will result in just that.

Of course - the question is whether bankruptcy has already been reached and whether there are any personal assets to even chase. Given that Bitcoin provides a pretty good way to hide assets, and the legal situation around Bitcoin and 'personal loans' via an unregulated exchange system is unclear at best - it would be a risky case.. but I know of at least one Bitcoiner who is tempted to risk 'throwing good money after bad' - simply to help establish some legal precedence here in Australia regarding this - and send a message that BTC debts will be chased up whether due to negligence, mismanagement or fraud.

If it turns out that that negligence/mismanagement/fraud don't directly apply to Graeme Tee's actions - I still think it's a plausible outcome to have the judgement made against Graeme Tee's assets - leaving his recourse to chase his losses against the other parties involved.