I don't think the comparison with an ordinary company is useful. They weren't mingling money paid to the company with money owed (which is normal), they were mingling client money, which they have no good reason to touch except under explicit instruction from the client, and their own funds used for operating expenses.
Companies which explicitly hold other people's money are usually held to higher standards in holding it (Solicitors, Banks, Estate Agents, etc). For example deposits are usually held in a client account, separate from other corporate funds, and not usable except for the intended purpose. The reasons for this are obvious, as it makes fraud far harder to perpetrate, and Mt.Gox not doing so is a red flag given the business they were in. Even worse than this, this wasn't a corporate account, it was Mark's personal account!
Even worse than this, this wasn't a corporate account, it was Mark's personal account!
I understand how you could read that from the employee's statement, but this allegation is contrary to fact. Gox did most of its business through a series of business accounts at Mizuho, one per currency. A list was provided by the bankruptcy trustee to creditors multiple times -- c.f. here: http://www.mtgox.com/img/pdf/20141126_document.pdf
Separating client and corporate funds, if done properly, will also protect the money from company debts. E.g. If the company becomes bankrupt, the client funds cannot be used to pay creditors.
> Companies which explicitly hold other people's money are usually held to higher standards in holding it (Solicitors, Banks, Estate Agents, etc). For example deposits are usually held in a client account, separate from other corporate funds, and not usable except for the intended purpose.
Banks use client deposits to fund their lending, though.
I don't see any fundamental problem with mixing client and corporate funds, provided there is good accounting, solid auditing and sufficient oversight in place to ensure client funds don't go missing. Obviously none of those existed in Mt. Gox.
Banks are pretty much the only institution that's allowed to commingle client funds with their own funds, and they're subject to a whole bunch of extra regulations and scrutiny as a result. Indeed, I've seen people argue that being able to do this is basically what defines a bank.
Companies which explicitly hold other people's money are usually held to higher standards in holding it (Solicitors, Banks, Estate Agents, etc). For example deposits are usually held in a client account, separate from other corporate funds, and not usable except for the intended purpose. The reasons for this are obvious, as it makes fraud far harder to perpetrate, and Mt.Gox not doing so is a red flag given the business they were in. Even worse than this, this wasn't a corporate account, it was Mark's personal account!
http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/accountsrules/part...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fe92x/im_ashley_b...