Craig Wright Guilty of Perjury and must Forfeit 50% of his BTC

… despite the judge poking holes in the credibility of Wright’s presentation, he did not provide a ruling on whether Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.

The court case accusing Craig Wright, the biggest supporter of Bitcoin SV, of stealing Bitcoins from Dave Kleiman, a computer scientist, has taken a new twist.

Judge Bruce Reinhart of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has ruled that Wright should forfeit 50% of the Bitcoins he mined with Kleiman in the period between 2009 and 2011. In the said period, the two are alleged to have mined over one million Bitcoins.

Wright intentionally swore a false oath

Additionally, Wright has been ordered to forfeit half of Bitcoin’s software property rights to Kleiman. Unfortunately, the Court has also accused Wright of intentionally swearing a false oath and providing the Court with falsified documents.

According to Kleiman’s lawyers, the mined Bitcoin was held in a trust known as the Tulip Trust. The case began in February 2018, with Kleiman being represented by Kyle Roche and Velvel Freedman while Rivero Mestre LLP represented Wright.

The ruling comes only days after Judge Beth Bloom pointed out that Wright’s testimony and documents provided in Court were inconsistent. In her ruling, Bloom said, “In weighing the evidence, the Court simply does not find the Defendant’s [Craig Wright] testimony to be credible.” Additionally, Bloom considered that some emails purportedly exchanged between Wright and Kleiman and presented as evidence were “extremely speculative.”

The case is not yet over; procedural issues need to be ironed out

Notably, although Reinhart’s ruling has addressed the major issues in the case against Craig Wright, the case will remain open to address procedural issues such as collection. However, despite the judge poking holes in the credibility of Wright’s presentation, he did not provide a ruling on whether Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.

The crypto community is divided

However, at ChainNode- a popular Chinese forum, the Chinese cryptocurrency community is divided on the implications of the ruling. Some were worried about what to make of the “BSV fans” while others claimed that the decision “is not to prove that he [Wright] invented Bitcoin. Just [meant] to give the partner some income.”

Additionally, other Bitcoin SV supporters considered that it was a conspiracy by the Bitcoin core camp who bribed Judge Reinhart.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Flooding the bitcoin market: Craig Wright’s warning falls flat

“I’m not worried about Craig transferring Bitcoin to Kleiman because I don’t think he has any to transfer,” Ryan Selkis, chief executive officer at crypto …

Craig Wright is warning that billions of dollars in Bitcoin could soon flood the cryptocurrency market after an unfavorable court hearing.

Investors seem to be taking the alert in stride, with Bitcoin little changed at about $10,150 after the self-proclaimed inventor of the cryptocurrency under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamora said he “has no choice” but to hand over $5 billion to the estate of his late business partner, Dave Kleiman.

“I’m not worried about Craig transferring Bitcoin to Kleiman because I don’t think he has any to transfer,” Ryan Selkis, chief executive officer at crypto researcher Messari Inc., said in an email. “It’s a sideshow, not a real story.”

Bloomberg Billions at Stake--Bitcoin chart

Wright is defending himself against charges that he stole Bitcoins and intellectual property from the Kleiman estate. Speculation that the judge reached a decision in the case spiked late Monday after a Twitter user claimed to attend the latest court hearing. Nothing has been filed yet by the federal court in Florida.

“The judge still has to make the final decision,” Ed Pownall, a spokesman for Wright, wrote in an email to Bloomberg.

That hasn’t stopped Wright from warning of the potential consequences.

“The courts ruled that Ira (Kleiman, brother of Dave Kleiman) inherited those billions,” Wright wrote in an email forwarded by Pownall. “Now he has to pay estate tax on that if he wants it.”

Wright said in earlier testimony that he handed off a key piece of information to Kleiman before he died in 2013, making it hard to track down the digital wallets holding the Bitcoins. He said it’s possible he may never be able to access the coins.

“The Kleiman family has waited a long time to recover assets that should have been returned to it shortly after Dave’s unfortunate death in 2013,” Devin Freedman, a partner at Roche Freedman LLP, which represents the estate, wrote in an email Monday to Bloomberg

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Judge in $10B Bitcoin Lawsuit Rips Craig Wright for No ‘Credible Evidence’

However, the judge’s order doesn’t mean she has determined that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. The court order doesn’t even broach that …
craig wrightcraig wright

A Florida court dismissed self-proclaimed bitcoin inventor Craig Wright’s motion to dismiss a $10B lawsuit filed by Dave Kleiman’s estate. | Source: CoinGeek/YouTube

By CCN Markets: A Florida federal court denied a motion by self-proclaimed bitcoin inventor Craig Wright challenging the court’s jurisdiction over the $10 billion lawsuit filed against him by the estate of Dave Kleiman.

In her ruling, Judge Beth Bloom said Wright failed to show that her court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. This means the lawsuit will move forward.

Judge: My court has the right to hear this case

In her order denying Wright’s motion, Bloom derisively pointed out several instances where the Australian crypto entrepreneur made conflicting statements about who were the owners of W&K Info Defense Research.

W&K was the Florida-based company that Wright and his former colleague, deceased computer genius Dave Kleiman, had collaborated on before Kleiman died in 2013.

According to the 2018 lawsuit filed against Wright by Dave’s brother, Ira Kleiman, Dave owned 50% to 100% of W&K. W&K presumably stands for the first letters of Wright and Kleiman’s surnames.

During their collaboration that started in 2008, the two friends worked on blockchain technologies and mined 1.1 million bitcoin. Wright never shared that massive bitcoin fortune with Kleiman’s estate after he died, according to the lawsuit.

craig wright bitcoin lawsuit kleimancraig wright bitcoin lawsuit kleiman
Judge Beth Bloom noted several instances where Craig Wright contradicted himself. | Source: Court filing

Judge was annoyed by Craig Wright’s conflicting statements

Many on Crypto Twitter gleefully mocked Wright for losing his motion. However, the judge’s order doesn’t mean she has determined that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. The court order doesn’t even broach that topic.

That said, there were a number of instances where Judge Bloom expressed annoyance at what she considered conflicting statements made by Wright. At one point, a testy Bloom cited Scottish novelist Sir Walter Scott’s quote that “Oh! What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”

Bloom was suggesting that Wright was not being honest about who were the members of W&K. Wright claimed in this latest motion that three additional parties were members of W&K:

  • Craig’s ex-wife Lynn Wright.
  • Uyen Nguyen, a Vietnamese national.
  • Coin-Exch, an Australian corporation.

However, the judge concluded that Wright “failed to present any credible evidence showing that any of the parties he suggests are members of W&K.” Moreover, she wrote that “the Court simply does not find the Defendant’s testimony to be credible” as to membership in W&K.

“This is not the first time that the Defendant has made certain representations regarding the membership of W&K. Indeed, the Court notes that the Defendant has made several conflicting statements regarding even his own ownership of W&K.”

Wright issues ominous warning

The Kleiman lawsuit is still in the early stages, and nothing substantive has really been adjudicated yet. Meanwhile, Craig Wright has been waxing philosophical on his personal blog.

In a recent entry, Wright vowed that he’ll wreak havoc once he comes into possession of the 1.1 million bitcoin he allegedly owns. When that happens on Jan. 1, 2020, Wright admonished the crypto industry to prepare for a potential bitcoin apocalypse.

bitcoin-inventor-craig-wright-kleiman-lawsuit-exhibitbitcoin-inventor-craig-wright-kleiman-lawsuit-exhibit
Source: Lawsuit exhibit

“Bitcoin can be seized,” Wright warned. “In the coming year, you’re going to learn just how fragile the house of cards that is a criminal system built upon Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency really is.”

This article is protected by copyright laws and is owned by CCN Markets.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Craig Wright faces another fake document allegation from Bitmessage founder Jonathan Warren

This is not the first time for the self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto to present court documents that appear to be fake when proving his case. Last month …

Bitmessage developer Jonathan Warren testified against Craig Wright, the Australian computer scientist who claims to be the inventor of bitcoin, accusing him of producing fabricated documents.

According to a court document released on August 13, Warren testified in a pre-trial examination as part of the ongoing lawsuit against Wright by the estate of Dave Kleiman.

Warren confirmed his role in the development of Bitmessage and admitted that both Wright and Kleiman had access to the messaging software prior to its launching. Warren pointed out some chronological inconsistencies found in the previous documents Wright presented to the court.

Wright allegedly faked some contracts, email correspondences, and Bitmessages, which were reportedly done to transfer Kleinman’s assets under his control. Warren said that printouts of the aforementioned correspondences before November 19, 2012, were potentially forged.

It tells me that something has been faked. Either the date has been faked or the screenshot has been faked… Because Bitmessage wasn’t released at that time back in October of 2012,” Warren revealed.

Warren was also questioned if changing the time and date displayed on Bitmessage is possible as received or sent. He affirmed and said it is possible to “trick the software” into showing the wrong date and time, explaining that a computer’s local time can be backdated before sending a message.

This is not the first time for the self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto to present court documents that appear to be fake when proving his case. Last month, trial lawyer Stephen Palley claimed that the exhibits Wright filed at the District Court for the Florida Southern District were forged.

The legal counsel alleged that the documents contain multiple chronological discrepancies. Specifically, it appears that the font on the document does not match with the date based on the file metadata.

Before that, Wright said he is unable to comply with a federal court order that required him to provide a list of all his early Bitcoin addresses.

The Craig Wright saga started after Ira Kleinman, the estate of Dave Kleinman, claimed that Wright stole hundreds of thousands of bitcoins worth more than $5 million. Dave and Wright allegedly mined 1.1 million bitcoin together between 2009 and 2011, and Ira is suing for half of the collective stockpile.

TokenPost | [email protected]

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Kleiman’s attorneys seek UK witnesses, send letter of request for international judicial assistance

… Stefan Matthews, (iii) Calvin Ayre, (iv) or their agents that relate to W&K Info Defense Research, Dave Kleiman, Satoshi Nakamoto, or the Tulip Trust.

Quick Take

  • The Kleiman v. Wright case has been going on since February 2018
  • Now, Kleiman’s attorneys want to interview three UK-based witnesses, sending a letter of request for international judicial assistance to interview them
  • The UK judge will review letter and decide whether or not to grant the request

by Nelson Rosario

20 hrs ago · 4 min read

Disclaimer: These summaries are provided for educational purposes only by Nelson Rosario and Stephen Palley. They are not legal advice. These are our opinions only, aren’t authorized by any past, present or future client or employer. Also we might change our minds. We contain multitudes.

As always, Rosario summaries are “NMR” and Palley summaries are “SDP”.

Kleiman v. Wright, Case №9:18-cv-80176-BB/BR (S.D. Fla., mailed July 22, 2019) [NMR]

The Kleiman v. Wright case has been underway since February of 2018. That’s 17 months time, and we still have a long way to go in this case, especially if this most recent request is granted. That request relates to witnesses. People that may be able to shed some light on the whole Satoshi issue, and other matters relevant to Kleiman’s case against Craig Wright. The problem is these people are all in the UK. So, what can you do when you want to interview people in the UK? Well, you can have the court send a Request for International Judicial Assistance. A what? Time for a little international law lesson.

For those unaware, there are lots of international treaties between countries all around the world. Lots. Given that lawsuits involving parties in different countries are not new things, you can probably guess that some of those international treaties would deal with how to handle those lawsuits. What happened recently in the Kleiman v. Wright case, is that the Court sent a letter of request to the Senior Master of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court, Royals Courts of Justice in London. There’s so much more pageantry in London, but I digress. Kleiman’s attorneys prepared this letter for the Court to send via a procedure authorized under the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, or more commonly known as the Hague Evidence Convention. This treaty was ratified by the U.S. in 1972, and later by the UK in 1976, ergo, lawyers in both countries may leverage the Convention to get evidence when they need it. So, what evidence is Kleiman seeking here?

Well, according to the request, Kleiman’s attorneys want to interview three witnesses: Andrew O’Hagan who wrote the book The Satoshi Affair, Ramona Watts who is Craig Wright’s wife, and Robert MacGregor a business associate of Wright. As you can imagine, these people probably know some things. In the letter of request the particular documentation requested, and the proposed subject matter of questioning is laid out for the UK judge to see.

From O’Hagan the plaintiff wants to ask about the process of writing the Satoshi Affair, as well as, any statements or documents provided by Wright that related to Dave Kleiman, W&K Info, Satoshi, the creation of Bitcoin, etc., Kleiman also wants access to related emails and documents, and notably “many hours of tape” that were used to write the book.

From Ramona Watts, Kleiman’s attorneys want testimony concerning anything non-privileged Wright told her about Dave Kleiman, W&K Info, Satoshi, the creation of Bitcoin, Uyen Nguyen, the ATO investigation, the deal with MacGregor, Matthews, and Ayre, and intellectual property matters. As you can see, there’s some new players on the board. They also want any documents and communications that Watts has “dated prior to February 14, 2018, between Ms. Watts and either (i) Robert MacGregor, (ii) Stefan Matthews, (iii) Calvin Ayre, (iv) or their agents that relate to W&K Info Defense Research, Dave Kleiman, Satoshi Nakamoto, or the Tulip Trust.”

MacGregor was involved in a deal with Wright to sell the life rights to Satoshi’s story, and Kleiman’s attorneys want information about that, as well as anything related to Kleiman, Nakamoto, W&K, the Trust, the ATO investigation, IP matters, and the allegedly mined bitcoin. Just like Watts, the plaintiff wants documents and communications related to Dave Kleiman, W&K Info, Satoshi, the creation of Bitcoin, Uyen Nguyen, the ATO investigation, the deal with MacGregor, Matthews, and Ayre, and intellectual property matters. Needless to say, there is a lot of potential new evidence that may come into this case.

What happens next is that the UK judge will review letter and decide whether or not to grant the request. The UK judge could deny the request, and there wouldn’t be anything that the parties here in the U.S. could do about it. So, hopefully, for Kleiman, the request is compelling and is not an affront to the sensibilities of the UK judge. We shall see.


The Block is pleased to bring you expert cryptocurrency legal analysis courtesy of Stephen Palley (@stephendpalley) and Nelson M. Rosario (@nelsonmrosario). They summarize three cryptocurrency-related cases on a weekly basis and have given The Block permission to republish their commentary and analysis in full. Part III of this week’s analysis, Crypto Caselaw Minute, is above.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts