Steve will have to face whatever is coming, but why would "blind...

Steve will have to face whatever is coming, but why would "blind disciples" get "what's coming" to them? What did they do wrong? Do you know anything specific?

The two other founders would not still be working at Dubber if the investigation revealed involvement by them.

James might be Peter's son, but that doesn't make him responsible for his father's past business dealings.

Dubber had three founders, but Steve was fully in control. The other two weren't even on the board. One might consider whether they wanted to be on the board, or whether they weren't wanted on the board..

The best explanation for what has happened, given the limited information available, is that a slush fund was operated from the lawyer's trust account, invisible to the company's management.

The Directors were responsible for overseeing the company's finances, but they might also have been presented with false data. They may be able to make a reasonable case that they performed their duties, based upon the information available to them.

Auditors might also have been duped, only discovering problems when taxes weren't being paid & asking why the term deposit in trust wasn't called up to pay $10.6M overdue to the ATO & SRO.

Do Auditors have a responsibility to verify directly with a bank that a lawyer's trust account is correct? I'm not an auditor, so not sure but, if so, this might be an avenue to recover the lost funds via the Audit firm's insurers.

I doubt Steve's "blind disciples" had any direct involvement in the theft. If there was evidence of involvement, they wouldn't remain employed at Dubber.