The promise of future profits amounting to more than what they would walk away with today
That's exactly the same argument I used to justify why MtGox wouldn't shut down, almost word for word. It's the same argument I used to convince myself why they wouldn't shut down. They still shut down.
They're not anonymous, and they would run a real risk of bodily harm by such a public crime.
So we're relying on mob justice? Also, Mr. Karpeles hasn't been harmed and probably won't be.
Or, it could be that Mr. Karpeles hasn't been harmed for a common sense reason; right now, he's the only one who seems to know what's going on inside of Mt.Gox, and what the actual status of the missing BTC is. If he comes out and announces that all of the customers' coins are irretrievably gone, then all bets are off.
(No, I don't want to see harm come to him, and I don't mean that comment above as a threat. What I do know is that there's a very strong chance that at last some of the BTC he lost/stole/squandered/etc. was owned by people who don't settle things with a lawsuit and a lawyer. Maybe it is unlikely, but it's something that I would be concerned of, if I was in his shoes right now)
The jury's out on whether MtGox took the money and ran or lost the money and hid, right?
I'm not saying we should rely on mob justice. I'm saying that the risk of reprisal is a perfectly understandable reason not to commit certain crimes. These guys are public figures and would be easy targets for people who want to harrass or harm them, unlike for example a mask-wearing bank robber whom nobody can identify and who stole only the bank's money.
That's exactly the same argument I used to justify why MtGox wouldn't shut down, almost word for word. It's the same argument I used to convince myself why they wouldn't shut down. They still shut down.
They're not anonymous, and they would run a real risk of bodily harm by such a public crime.
So we're relying on mob justice? Also, Mr. Karpeles hasn't been harmed and probably won't be.