This applies to a different legal and monetary system than what has applied to Bitcoin so far. In another jurisdiction, the onus may be placed on the client to perform due diligence.
I don't think it makes any difference what thing of value was exchanged, whether currency or commodity. If you think it makes a difference, please explain why.
Bitcoin still has no major legal precedents set. Because it is significantly different from traditional monetary systems, it may prove difficult to apply existing rulings without changes being made to them.
As for the onus being on the client to perform due diligence, that does not mean what you think it means. If I hire a contractor to do work on my house, it's my responsibility to do due diligence to make sure I hire a reliable contractor. But if he sets my house on fire, he can't respond, "It was your responsibility to make sure I was a good contractor". That's just silly. That a victim's stupidity made him easy to victimize is only relevant if the question is how much we should feel sorry for the victim and how much we should hate the perpetrator. It doesn't change the victim's right to restitution or the wrongness of the exploitation of the victim. (It's just as bad to rob an idiot as a genius.)
Yes, the contractor is the subject. What seems to be the case with claw backs is that workers hired by the contractor are being targeted as well, at least in regard to BS&T.
If the perpetrator has a proven history, responsibility can be broken down into the risk of participating from the victim's perspective based on available information, and the actual commission of the act by the criminal. As you pointed out, there is no getting off the hook for an act of aggression, but there is a subjective scale of sentiment for the victim.
If you kill my cow, you are not expected to resurrect the cow to return to me. You are expected to pay me the value of the cow. The same thing will happen here. If people who were the beneficiaries of fraudulent transfers can be identified, they can be subject to claw backs.
Exactly, remuneration. But in the context of Bitcoin, how are the claw backs accomplished if the individuals cannot be physically forced to give up their part? Also, how is ownership of a Bitcoin address proven any more than the user of an IP address?
Quite the reverse, charities have historically been major victims of Ponzi schemes, just as they were here. The charity here was subject to a claw back.
I hadn't seen that part.
