I don't think that is what Jim meant anyway. I think what he meant is that even if they do things differently now, by the rules, that cannot change what was done before which may have caused damage to the shareholders. For instance, if the company was actually an empty shell before when they claimed to have external assets, they can't go back now and put assets into the company and make it all right. What's done is done. Hypothetically, it's like a bank robber saying I robbed banks last year but I'm not doing it anymore and gives back the money...too late, and the damage is already done.
And of course if they have evidence of their innocence they will most assuredly present it and the authorities will evaluate it and weigh it against their own evidence.
Blessings to you as well.