>>> We know they don't have full reserves because we know 30% of them were seized. [1]

You suspect they don't have full reserves because you know 30% of them were seized. Presuming "full reserves" means 1:1 backing (what else could it mean, here?), your statement assumes they had exactly 1:1 reserves before the seizure. If they had more than that, your assumption could end up false.

So sure, you suspect. From what I've read in this thread, I tend to agree. But I fail to see how you know.