There are no illegal activities involved here, because none of these certificates have been revoked following a criminal conviction related to their use.<p>Nearly all developed Western countries have judicial systems that presuppose innocence until proven otherwise in a competent criminal court following established procedures.  It seems like your cultural background is very different from that, which is why we&#x27;re not communicating well.  In my culture, asserting that someone was doing something illegal means that the person has been convicted by a criminal court with respect to that act.  In many systems, saying that someone was doing something illegal without either a conviction or bearing witness under oath to the allegedly criminal act is itself a crime, that of slander or libel.  It seems that you are using a very different definition, one that I don&#x27;t understand.  While I know little of Palau&#x27;s legal traditions, in this case both the CA and its customer had no ties to Palau, and their business relationship was not governed by its laws.  So even if that country and its legal culture does not follow the same principles as mine, it&#x27;s not relevant to this case.  Perhaps that&#x27;s the confusion here?