Wondering, are you connected to "xpronto" or "xsample" somehow?
As for the wait of paperwork belonging to someone else:
Let's say a player B scammed player A, and player B got a lot of PEDs for it, or scammed player A off an unique item.
Then player B trades player C, giving player C that item, but without recieving full playment in terms of estimated market value.
Now player A complains to MA, and maybe even goes to Court or local police. Now, MA sees that some valuable has been transfered from the mentioned scammer B to player C. But, as it looks like player B have passed the item to player C, MA now locks both player B and player C. Though player C has been verified, the player C is locked as long as player B can't be identified and held responsible.
That's just a guess of what can cause player C to still be locked because MA is waiting for player B to be identified.
As for withdrawal: If player C, in his turn, has sold the item (for PEDs) and has submitted a withdrawal request, maybe that also can be a reason to keep the lock (that is, to make sure the scammed value doesn't leave the game until the investigation is completed). Let's say player C submits a large:ish withdrawal request of say 100k ped. MA checks history, and sees it comes from the sale of a rare item. MA checks how the item got into the avatars inventory, and sees that came from an avatar that's been formally accused of scamming ie the item is "hot". Now MA locks the avatar to freeze the transaction.
Maybe it would be resolved if player C would offer to voluntary "rollback" any transaction (trade) that would include a potentially "hot" item. If player C got the item as a gift (ie no PEDs in trade window) then it would have to be given back for free. In this case to locked avatar B. Though it's unlikely that A would get any Money back, it would be for the reason that "crime does not pay", that is scammer B, the one with missing personal details, would be locked without ability to funnel out the profits from the scam). Note that it's B and not C that's the scammer, player C's role is only to liquidate the item (possibly also to get the Money out-of-game and then give Money to player B, if they know eachother IRL).
Giving an item as a "gift" in a trade window could also mean that there is a payment out-of-game, but I Think it's clear that any trade not done entirely in trade window is done at own risk and that the one who gets an item this way should be prepared to get locked and to be willing to reverse the trade in case the item has been involved in some scamming scheme.
6.1. Transactions between Avatars
Please notice that transactions concerning payment for Virtual Items, including PED, outside the Entropia Universe often involve fraudulent activities. You acknowledge that any transaction regarding Virtual Items, including PED, carried out using any service or system other than one of MindArk’s Approved Transaction systems is at Your own risk. MindArk reserves the right to take any reasonably necessary measures for the purpose of preventing and acting against frauds and non-Approved Transactions, including, but not limited to, making a reservation against a suspected Transaction, and Banning and/or Terminating a directly or indirectly involved Account, if MindArk determines that the transaction was not performed in compliance to this Agreement.
Guess what: I Think that is expected. If you have brought in lawyers/Court, it would mean that the status from MA's side also would change. It would be very surprising if there would *not* be an unofficial support rule, that if the support ticket has changed into a possible lawsuit, that any informal Communication would stop, and that the Communication from that Point would be elevated from support department to MA legal department, and that MA would not give any statement that hasn't been explicitly approved by the Company lawyer.
