Generally, if you receive stolen goods, there are two possibilities: you knew they were stolen (read: a prosecutor can convince a jury you knew), in which case you lose the goods and get prosecuted. Or you didn't know they were stolen (read: prosecutors can't convince a jury you knew), in which case you merely lose the goods.
This may seem unfair from the perspective of the unknowing recipient of stolen goods, but letting them keep the goods is equally unfair from the perspective of the original victim, and would feel like the law giving its blessing to the theft (it would also encourage schemes to knowingly but with plausible deniability receive stolen goods). So there's no solution that is guaranteed to appear fair from all perspectives. But the law generally sides with returning the goods to the original owner, effectively undoing the original theft.
In this case, the "investors" who are being targeted by the suits are also getting to keep their own original capital; they're just being required to hand back the ill-gotten gains. So the remedy is effectively undoing the Ponzi scheme.
If you buy the stolen goods from a big box retailer that is routinely regulated then this analogy might be useful. As it is it does not apply very well to this situation.
Considering the amount of counterfeit goods sold on Amazon I suspect at least some of it was simply stolen. In such a case I would expect the items to be clawed back if possible. Though with the possibility of Amazon making the buyer whole.
That also seems like the correct approach here where anyone running a feeder fund should be on the hook.
Generally, if you receive stolen goods, there are two possibilities: you knew they were stolen (read: a prosecutor can convince a jury you knew), in which case you lose the goods and get prosecuted. Or you didn't know they were stolen (read: prosecutors can't convince a jury you knew), in which case you merely lose the goods.
This may seem unfair from the perspective of the unknowing recipient of stolen goods, but letting them keep the goods is equally unfair from the perspective of the original victim, and would feel like the law giving its blessing to the theft (it would also encourage schemes to knowingly but with plausible deniability receive stolen goods). So there's no solution that is guaranteed to appear fair from all perspectives. But the law generally sides with returning the goods to the original owner, effectively undoing the original theft.
In this case, the "investors" who are being targeted by the suits are also getting to keep their own original capital; they're just being required to hand back the ill-gotten gains. So the remedy is effectively undoing the Ponzi scheme.