The bank account used is credentials and Apple considers both accounts to belong to (quote) "the same legal entity" based on that fact. This is the way Apple conducts business.
"This is the way Apple conducts business" is not a justification for conducting business that way.
Kapeli is in Romania where credit card ownership is less common, and the "legal entity link" we're talking about is just a nominal $99/fee and some older devices. Moreover, Apple is admitting they they see them as distinct accounts, only notified one of them, and completely ignored the fact that Kapeli's side of the linked accounts had high credibility.
It sounds like Apple is desperately trying to justify the not-very-smart algorithm of an automated "booter" program rather than giving Kapeli the respect and due diligence that he deserves as a top developer.
No. You can use a different bank account to get paid and use a different name for your developer account from credit card used. You can even use a prepaid credit card(But you have to provide ID). In this case, it's clear that the account names were different. Also it seems the bank accounts to get payment from apple were different(Otherwise they would mention it). And the only links were the credit card and some devices(only apple and the developer know how many devices and in some extent)
It is certainly knowable that the identity on the credit card is part of the verification process and that it must match his own. If the name he entered wasn't his own, the verification would likely have been denied:
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6238222?tstart=0
That's why I'm suspicious as to which name he actually entered.
In this case, it seems the two accounts used different names otherwise they would mentioned it already because it's huge evidence that the accounts are linked.
In the U.S., you can add authorized users to your credit cards, and they typically send you new cards that just have a different name, but for which the rest of the information is identical (same number, same CVV code, same expiration).
At least this was the case with the cards issued for authorized users I added to my Citi Double credit card account.
So you could have a single card number with multiple valid names/users.
I think I'm much less invested in this than you two but I can say that it would strike me as very unusual to pay for someone else's account with Apple.
For example, Mithaldu, if an anonymous outsourcing party rendered you a service, than rather than wire them money or pay via paypal, would you be okay with paying for an apple account with them, with no further relationship, and you don't even know who they are? Probably not.
I think we can all agree that yes, he "should have" thought about this implication of trust.
From his response "helped a relative get started by paying for her Apple’s Developer Program Membership using my credit card. I also handed her test hard"
It was a relative, so I don't get your question's relevance to the situation.
sorry, I missed that part. I straight-up don't believe that their relative engaged in fraudulent activity related to Dash (such as leaving negative reviews of competitors) by complete coincidence and at arm's length. I didn't read all the information carefully though.
You missed the other discussion which mentions he's Romanian, and very few Romanians have their own banking services, and in fact share banking services among family members.
Kapeli is in Romania where credit card ownership is less common, and the "legal entity link" we're talking about is just a nominal $99/fee and some older devices. Moreover, Apple is admitting they they see them as distinct accounts, only notified one of them, and completely ignored the fact that Kapeli's side of the linked accounts had high credibility.
It sounds like Apple is desperately trying to justify the not-very-smart algorithm of an automated "booter" program rather than giving Kapeli the respect and due diligence that he deserves as a top developer.