Your response is predicated on a dubious assumption -- assumption that a financier is trying to help you.  If that was indeed the case, your argument is begging the question -- its conclusion is presupposed in its premise.

Further, you misinterpreted pretty much everything i have said.  At no point do i "claim that Ukyo is a scammer."  I present you the poster i am responding to with a hypothetical scenario.  Let me stress again that i try to be precise in what i say, specifically to avoid this sort of confusion.  I try not to make unbacked accusations, please return me the courtesy.

Regarding your hypothetical:  If Ukyo committed a crime, asked Microsoft to cover it up and Microsoft complied, then yes -- Microsoft would be guilty of aiding and abetting.  This would remain true even if Microsoft partially reimbursed the victims of said crime.

Again, please take care to understand that nowhere have i said that Ukyo has committed a crime, that Microsoft aided him after the fact, or anything else you might read into this.  That's not what the word hypothetical means.