While I must confess that I do not fully understand the motives at play, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty, I'm struggling to find a reason for a profitable company to file for bankruptcy which isn't fraudulent.

I just wanted to criticize that many of the arguments in the original article refer to activities like violating the "state money transmission laws" or "money laundering" and "suspicious transactions" (http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/index.html?id=5618295)

It isn't usually called borrowing when you don't give stuff back.

i don't think that's how it works, unless you mean clean of negative publicity. i really doubt most lobbying are clean, but you don't hear about them, because they act like the kings concubines.

The problem for all of us could be that people often forget that "An idea is not responsible for the people that believe in it" (some "Don Marquis" said that)

Just an aside. This may be an incriminating statement to make, especially without anonymity. I don't know what it is like in Europe, but I doubt an American lawyer would feel well knowing that a client has littered the internet with weapons a future prosecutor could find online with a simple Google search for your name.

I'm not sure what the benefit is for revealing this attitude, even if you do feel strongly in this regard.

But then again, taken out of context (the "no harm" part), an eager prosecutor could use it (successfully or not) so I suppose you are right.

Just as a side note: This is not how it should be, and ironically and most unfortunately, your statement reinforces my original point :(