"JB the lawyer thought a trust account was a good idea - I think you're missing the possibility of things going nasty if a mistake is made in who the name is handed back to. "
And I said that because my eyeballs have not seen either a real person or a real document which is probative of any of the allegations made in the thread. Attilio states that he has seen things which provide him with a firmer belief that this situation is as it appears to be. However, it can be difficult to make decisions on the basis of what story sounds better, or who has a better command of English. Often, people just don't explain things well.
The easy thing for Attilio to have done would have been to hand back the domain name where he got it and walk away. Having restored the status quo in the face of conflicting information, he would have minimized potential exposure.
It seems he has chosen to do something more interesting, and it is good to see that he has learned to use the word "might" to sort out the various possible situations which have been alleged, rather than to assume that anything is necessarily true. He has also clearly stated that his intent is not to claim ownership of the domain name, and is taking action consistent with that intent - hence a claim of fraud, which includes an element of intent, is more difficult to make.
"I read into Mr Berryhills message that the ONLY way"
Just because my limited imagination only comes up with one possibility, does not mean it is the only thing to do. But, yes, if domainp is paid and Allen gets the domain name, then the only person with a gripe would be opencg, and his claim is absurd.