As mean as it sounds, a company run in the upper echelon's with a colourful past as Sonny is unlikely to get bank and VC backing. And as sad as it sounds, a lot of VCs i have met might have said "Good, lets do this. One condition: Fire the fraudster guy."
VCs are already gambling. Even run by completely legit personnel, a large number of startups (of the type that need VC in the first place) are going to go belly-up before recouping the investment. Even with advantages like insisting on preferred stock, they may lose their entire investment. VCs hope to make a profit because when they hit, they hit big. However, they're expecting to lose sometimes, even the majority of times. With a limited tolerance for a long streak of failures, they really can't afford to do shit like invest in a company headed by a convicted criminal. Sure, maybe he's reformed himself, but it's just a bad risk at that point. Why borrow trouble?
It's kind of moot, though, because even if you found VCs willing to overlook the fact that the guy is a convicted felon, I can't imagine any VCs sitting by idly while the company is represented by a complete raving asshole like Josh Zerlan. This is the kind of freakish behavior they simply would not tolerate.
That is why I think BFL is lying about VC just like they lie about everything else. However, if they did have VC, where's the tranches of preferred stock and other things that you'd see in such a situation? There is no VC in the world who would be dumb enough to get into a partnership and end up legally on the hook for BFL's debts if they end up liable for scamming. Is BFL even a corporation?