I have (no?) idea what if anything BBR has to do with the bytecoin scheme.
I would put it more strongly: Event though it seems probable that CZ involved in cryptonote development, and hence in bytecoin development, there is nothing to link him directly with the pre-mine scam. If CZ was involved early in development but not in the fraud, almost certainly he was at least aware of it, so perhaps the distinction is too fine. If he was involved late, he could have been aware of it, but have no culpability in it. The closeness of the association, however, still would damage the risk profile of BBR in the market's view.
Imagine for example that he wrote all of the code (all makes it simpler, we don't need to make fine distinctions about which code he wrote) but had nothing to do with premining or even launching or managing the coin at all. Just purely a programmer. There seems to be some evidence of a coin-mill at work where some or all of the various coins (BCN/BMR/FCN/QCN/XDN/etc.) being run by the same operation. Given that business structure it seems plausible that programming might be entirely separate from packaging, releasing, marketing, pumping-and-dumping, etc. and he could have nothing whatsoever to do with any of their actions (fraudulent premines, etc.).
Now the issue to me in this hypothetical scenario is that it sounds an awful lot like the established facts of the botnet case (write the code but not running it). If that happened twice with the same guy you have to either wonder if he has the worst possible luck in getting jobs, or perhaps is not that innocent. Twice should make us question luck, but certainly luck can't be ruled out.
We don't know if it is the same guy and if it is the same guy we don't know whether anything like I wrote above has actually happened.