The coins in the stolen address are on the move, but at the moment (block 337938) they are in a closed system with no outside coins. But there are some other interesting transactions to examine first.
When looking at the fact that BitStamp was hacked it is natural to immediately has how were they hacked. With the information available I don't think we can give a definitive answer, and the evidence is a little unclear at the moment. Assuming this was an outside actor there are two simple explanations: the private keys were stolen/leaked/compromised or the outside actor was inducing the BitStamp systems to pay him out. However there are transactions that bring those two simple conclusions into doubt.
First, if this was simple key theft then why was the 1L2Js address generating change addresses that BitStamp was able to sweep into 1Jokt (that is presumed to be BitStamp cold storage). Here's one address:
The b68738 transaction sent over 32 BTC to the theft address and created a change address 1BtGH with over 641 mBTC. Less than an our later at transaction d1d835 a transaction placed exactly 10 BTC into the current BitStamp cold storage address. The change address also peeled off into more cold storage transactions. It is unlikely the thief was being nice and putting the coins back in the vault. This happened two more times:
Transactions 2378aa and a8c199 both created separate change addresses and sent to the same theft address (which has since been swept up into another address). However both of the change addresses were sept into BitStamp cold storage (and those change addresses also peeled into more cold storage). Bit that's not the strangest part. The 19C5D and 1BtGH addresses were not single use addresses.
The 19c5D address was an input to a theft transaction and there are still just over 10 mBTC sitting in an unspent output to 1BtGH. The 1KPeo address is at the moment a single use address.
Why on earth would the thief create change addresses that BitStamp could use to sweep the change into cold storage? This is evidence in favor of someone inducing the BitStamp systems to pay out to a theft address. But you would think that BitStamp would shut their old system down after a couple of days, and we wouldn't see any more large movements into the wallet except taggers and dusters. Except nearly 4BTC is not a dusting and tagging amount:
Over $1,000USD is a bit high for an address tag, and a bit high for misdirection. This coin was also generated after the thefts occurred, so it can't be a stray transaction that got lost in the network. My best guess is that this was a deposit account for someone that didn't get the memo to stop depositing. If this was a deposit address their last deposit was before the hack:
Then their deposit was used to tumble out some payment to another account prior to the attack as well. (BitStamp is reported to have it's own mixer/tumbler available for customer use. I haven't used BitStamp and obviously can't open an account to verify at the moment.)
Better evidence of it being a long standing deposit can be seen with BlockTrail's summary of the address. It is very spiky and goes to zero a lot, so it's not a long term holding address but a transactional one.
So the simple explanations are out the window. The two leading explanations in my mind are that the theft stole the keys and the software and stood up their own instance of the hot wallet to do the theft, or that the compromised services at BitStamp are still up and running. Either one of these could have been done by an inside agent or an outside agent. Odds are BitStamp won't say much until the relevant law enforcement agencies has had their turn to examine the evidence.