>If I described to a lay person that there was a hacker website frequented by lots and lots of people with an active forum community, you’d likely get at least some of them to suggest banning it…

Different things. In this case you have a pathological outcome in the process. "Free real estate" as it were because you've got an organizational structuring that is essentially censure proof by the Court unless you pierce the corporate veil.

Remember, corporations are suffered to exist as a courtesy, and a means to distribute risk, but our Court system is very much tuned to "there is a person, get them in here now, and lets get this sorted."

If the Court has to choose between being ineffectual and exploitable, and piercing the veil in order to get to the bottom of duplicitous behavior, one can only hope the Judge will settle in and push the issue.

> The corporations in this case a) hold assets and b) provide liability limits. That is the basis of all corporations.

Surely the basis of all corporations is to trade and to undertake usefull economic activity.

We spesifically don't want them to limit liability where profit is made upfront, owners take off with the money, and there is no-one left to pay the costs.

There is no need for a corporation purely to enable trade. The entire point is to limit liability of the investors. Otherwise we could just ban them wholesale.