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 presentyou 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.
Further, you misinterpreted pretty much everything i have said. At no point do i "claim that Ukyo is a scammer." I present
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.
...
More inaccuracies i'd like to clear up:
The reason behind my pressing the point of exactly who is involved -- NeoBee or Danny -- is there's a world of difference, not just the salaries drawn by the employees.
Initially, Danny claimed that NeoBee is behind this -- a corporation with its corporate coffers. Later, he recanted by claiming that only he, Danny, an individual, is behind this -- not the corporation he fronts.
If Danny is as savvy in finance as i assume him to be, he structured his finances in a way as to be worth nothing on paper. If this comes down to litigation, there will be simply nothing to pursue with NeoBee coffers off the table. This is why i wanted him to answer my question. He led people to think that NeoBee was behind this, but in reality it's only him -- a point you still seem to be ignoring.
I do not know what Danny is doing to help Ukyo, and neither do you, so the remainder is nothing but conjecture.
⇩ ...and this is why we can't have nice things
