The Third Circuit held today that an outfit whose raison d'etre consists of fleecing investors can't sue you for giving it funds that enabled it to cut off more and more wool from the innocent sheep.
The court said the act that caused the loss consisted not of furnishing the money. No. That simply made the outfit's short-term liquidity better. The bad result-causing thing instead involved management's decision to misuse the cash, for evil purposes. That broke the causal connection. "The losses BFS suffered as a result were proximately caused by Bentley's subsequent actions, not by the cash infusion itself." Marion v. TDI Inc., No. 06-5173, slip op. at 35 (3d Cir. Jan. 4, 2010) (footnote omitted but worth reading).
Even though none of it would've happened but for what you did. You naughty person.