I found this quote on an article about the definition of innocent until proven guilty:
In practice, the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions
Well if there were no charges, never mind proven beyond all doubt, then there's no way anyone can say he is guilty - not in the eyes of the law. It's all just speculation and heresay and personal opinion otherwise. Even you suspecting him, still means nothing - he is innocent in the eyes of the law.
I'm not on anyone's side here, I haven't read deeply into the case and don't plan to but have read enough to know he is innocent technically - but none of us will probably ever know what really happened. The Foundation resignments I read about but again, it's based on speculation - and there were two other people who they also felt were dodgy.
Appreciate all the info though, I really do :)
RE: John Oliver and Cryptocurrencies