You're forgetting that when they initially decided to keep the servers they didn't know whether Kim would regain access to his funds or whether he would want to buy the data back at all. In retrospect they could've made the decision to do what you're suggesting.
I know conspiracy theories are appealing, but it's much more likely that they took a calculated risk by holding on to the data/servers for one of their bigger, well-paying clients (~1.5% of their total server count). Then, when the gamble didn't look like it was going to pay off, they decided to cut their losses and reuse the servers.
I know conspiracy theories are appealing, but it's much more likely that they took a calculated risk by holding on to the data/servers for one of their bigger, well-paying clients (~1.5% of their total server count). Then, when the gamble didn't look like it was going to pay off, they decided to cut their losses and reuse the servers.