Re: OT: WWhhaatt??
The court's decision seems to ignore precedents that money is fungible. But perhaps there is a subtlety that you missed: the Golf Channel agreed that the transfer of funds was fraudulent. In my own very un-expert opinion, this looks like a huge mistake by the Golf Channel, whose lawyers were probably over-confident that they would win on other grounds (where else have we seen this?).
Even in the SCO cases, wasn't there an argument made (and won) that money, once it was paid into a bank account and mingled with other funds could only be partially traced?