I understand that, but it still does nothing to affect the accessibility of the site as the judge claimed. It makes it a little harder to stumble across, but unless the actual site is taken down people can still access it. It's like saying that you've made the dodgy stall down the market inaccessible because you stopped them advertising in the local paper rather than actually getting it removed from the market.
"without finding them first, how will they know that they exist AND what the URL is ?"
Links from other sites / emails / etc. I highly doubt that a successful scam site relied solely on people stumbling across it on Google, and even if they did they're bound to have altered their tactics while this fight was going on. At best, they've removed one of many traffic sources, and it might not even have been their primary one.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
