apehater: thats great.. currently investigating, but already removed the games. so already in prison while the court will be in the future, to decide guilty or not. that's something that normally applies to investigation crimes with killed persons or risk of flight. 
 Phasmid: Currently investigating 
'the source of the fraud'. They are saying that it is 
definitely fraud, they just don't know the source. To use your example, a murder does not become a murder once you know who did it, it becomes a murder when you know it was an unlawful killing. By that measure Ubisoft has found the body and knows it was murder, they just don't know who exactly committed the crime. The example used below is actually better though, that of stolen goods sold through a trader. 
 
 "Ubisoft has said it is actively deactivating keys it believes were "fraudulently" obtained ..." 
 
Phasmid: That is editorialising from Eurogamer. Ubisoft clearly states that it was fraud and they are investigating it to determine who is to blame. It's the same way articles descibe an 'alleged assault' where someone has definitely been punched in the face.  
 There is, of course, plenty of potential for complaint about Ubisoft's conduct, but fraudulent purchases using CCs that have been harvested from security breaches is pretty common. Buying from key resellers is little different from buying from a dodgy second hand trader- you run the risk that what you buy is stolen, and if the police (or in this case Ubisoft) find out they'll take it off you because it is stolen.. 
 this doesnt change what i have posted. presumption of innocence like it should be and not like ubisoft is doing. besides that, i maybe missed it, so again where is ubisofts official statement: keys of game w bought on site x from trader y in timeperiod z are illegit?