Who sent harry the firebolt

We all know that elves have their very own legal guidelines and basically don’t respect the rules of witchcraft. That’s made clear by Griphook’s perspective on the Griffindor Sword thus far as they relate to the indisputable fact that Black is a necessary fugitive that may not be relevant that they usually aren’t; they do not consider it their duty to provide for the Ministry of Magic. That’s supported by the indisputable fact that the Lestrange vault/account still seems to be going strong by Deathly Hallows occasions, despite the undeniable fact that she’s been in Azkaban much. years as a convict, unrepentant and truly high-ranking supporter of Voldemort. If MoM had any energy in Gringotts, you would guess the contents of her vault would be ransacked and confiscated. Although we have heard of Malfoy’s residence being searched simply on suspicion of containing black objects. These are many real world examples of banks being caught dealing with criminal funds. Read more: Who died in the big world of little people We even purportedly imagine that the Gringotts account is certainly functionally anonymous. At the beginning of the first tutorial when HP first shows up at Gringotts, he is asked for his key, not concrete proof of his identity. “We are due to take some cash from Mr. Harry Potter’s protection.” “Did you take his key, sir?” … ..[Hagrid rummages for the key]… ‘Bought it,’ Hagrid finally said holding a tiny golden key. ‘ The goblin examined it intently. ‘That seems to be the case.’ and we don’t know for sure that it’s even in his identity it’s simply a numbered account and so far Gringotts worries that there’s been no safety breach, the cash has been withdraw to the account according to the correct method. For a typical purchase, they won’t even have the trouble of cross-referencing the quantity with the identifying information on the account. to | Top Q&A

Gringotts is not harmed as long as they are satisfied that the correct procedures for cashing out have been adopted, i.e. nothing has been stolen from them or their shoppers.
Goblins who don’t feel under any obligation to report shopper details to MoM can certainly have a wealth of evidence that shopper confidentiality is part of their service. .
There is not any evidence that MoM has the ability to compromise the accounts of convicted criminals.