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.
Ok... its hypothetical. But Microsoft wouldnt be guilty the same way NEOBEE wouldnt be. NEOBEE never claimed they will cover it all up. In fact they always claimed they arent involved financially and that they only try helping to fix it. Nothing more. Might be you wish they are bound somehow but for that being true they would have to state they will be liable and pay for ukyos debts. And why should they do such stupid thing?
They only wrote about helping.
By the way... i now contacted Marco Santori asking him what he wants for asking ukyo what happened and giving the info to me or more clients if more then myself are paying for that info.
You got 1BTC from me for this purpose.
Ok... ill keep that in mind... though i hope it should cost way more than that. I might be wrong since i never worked with that lawyer before.