The guy has already admitted that the fraudulent account is from his "relative" who uses the same credit card and same test devices. It seems like Apple gave him a lot of leeway due him actually making a good app and being public.
While I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, the overwhelming most likely case is he was doing exactly what Apple thought he was doing. At the very least, he should take some responsibility for the fact he's paying for someones account who is actively trying to harm his competitors.
Apple probably could've avoided a lot of this mess by not overtly banning his account, but doing the except opposite of what his manipulations intended and make the app almost impossible to find.
While I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, the overwhelming most likely case is he was doing exactly what Apple thought he was doing. At the very least, he should take some responsibility for the fact he's paying for someones account who is actively trying to harm his competitors.
Apple probably could've avoided a lot of this mess by not overtly banning his account, but doing the except opposite of what his manipulations intended and make the app almost impossible to find.