coachm - 1:04 am on Jan 12, 2009 (gmt 0)

I beleive there is strong precedent in law to expect that ONCE AWARE of illegal acts, a third party can be held liable if it takes no action. The standard tends to be "would a reasonable person be aware of the risk", and thus then be obligated to take action. Ignorance is clearly no excuse for being an accessory to illegal behavior IF the person is aware that illegal behavior is occuring and is helping it occur.

That's the sensible way to do this, gets around checking everything, and is fair to all. If I was launching a law suit on this issue, I'd allege conspiracy to commit fraud, rather than fraud.