Craig Wright – Satoshi Nakamoto imposter or not – Judge not impressed


Craig Wright – Satoshi Nakamoto imposter or not – Judge not impressed

In an ongoing reality play that has continued for nearly two years, the grandstanding performance of a one Craig Wright, who claims to be the real “Satoshi Nakamoto”, the inventor of Bitcoin and the blockchain, was brought to a semi-close, when a Federal judge, the Honorable Bruce E. Reinhart, ruled that he had “intentionally submitted fraudulent documents to the Court, obstructed a judicial proceeding, and gave perjurious testimony. No conduct is more antithetical to the administration of justice.”

Ouch! This ruling was not one that you would want, if and when you were ever trying your level best to get your hands all over a trust fund wallet with 1.1 million Bitcoins within it. Yes, that was not a typo. At today’s prices, that “hoard” would fetch a cool $11.3 billion… yes, that was a billion with a “b”. The judge never did rule if Wright was Satoshi, but he did ask several times for the encrypted wallet addresses and private keys for where this enormous pot full of BTC had been stashed. Wright vehemently objected to reveal anything or provide convincing evidence that the was the person he claimed.

According to Mr. Wright, his business partner and genius computer programmer, David Kleiman, unfortunately had died back in 2013. His estate, managed by his surviving brother, Ira Kleiman, sued for the return of his brother’s bitcoins that had been mined, as well as intellectual property connected with the creation of Bitcoin. Wright declared in court that Kleiman had turned over these items for stock in a now defunct company, but the documentation appeared to a set of crude forgeries, rejected by the court.

The circus antics of Craig Wright have been on full display since the case was begun in February of 2018. Skeptics and critics were in great number, casting aspersions on the Satoshi-wannabe, and in response, Wright threw stones of his own, declaring that he would eventually destroy his enemies, when he could throw billions of dollars at the task. Much of his brash public behavior also crossed over into the courtroom and was not at all found to be acceptable by Judge Reinhart. Here are a few comments from the record or summarizations thereof provided by The Block:

  • “I completely reject Dr. Wright’s testimony about the alleged Tulip Trust, the alleged encrypted file, and his alleged inability to identify his bitcoin holdings.
  • The quotes from this opinion about Wright’s deceptiveness are many and even have literary flair.
  • Craig Wright is, in the eyes of this federal magistrate judge, a liar, and that there is “clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Wright’s non-compliance with the Court’s Orders is willful and in bad faith.”
  • He [Wright] lied — over and over and over again, and you just can’t do this in federal court.
  • Wright will have to pay Kleiman’s reasonable legal fees.
  • The Court also didn’t blame Wright’s lawyers, and found that they did the best they could with a client who was clearly out of their control.”

The judge was not empowered to find Craig Wright in contempt of court, but he certified that their was enough evidence of bad conduct to warrant the district court finding such a ruling. Reinhart’s last recommendation was that 50% of all bitcoins and intellectual property, stored at an un-named source, be handed over to the Kleiman estate. A district court judge, District Judge Beth Bloom, must rule on the recommendation and complete other procedural matters, but everyone expects the ruling to stand.

As for the 1.1 million Bitcoins, if their whereabouts are truly known and if anyone chooses to start dumping them on the market, such a BTC flood could wreak havoc on current market dynamics. As for Wright, there is so much at stake, it is assumed that he will file an appeal, but after his previous charade and farcical behavior, what judge in his right mind could ever rule in his favor?

Related News

arrow

Craig Wright – Satoshi Nakamoto imposter or not – Judge not impressed

0

Send this to a friend