A U.K. judge imposed a worldwide freezing order on 6 million British pounds ($7.6 million) of Craig Wright’s assets to prevent him moving them offshore and evading costs arising from a court case that found he was not, as he’d claimed, Bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto.

In a March 14 decision, Judge James Mellor, who heard the case brought by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), also found Wright didn’t author the Bitcoin white paper nor the initial versions of the Bitcoin software. Shortly after that, Wright notified Companies House, the U.K.’s register of companies, that shares in his RCJBR Holding company had been transferred to DeMorgan, a company organized under the laws of Singapore.

According to a judgment dated Wednesday and posted on the website of the Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund, COPA’s costs amount to about 6.7 million pounds.

“Understandably, that gave rise to serious concerns on COPA’s part that Dr Wright was implementing measures to seek to evade the costs consequences of his loss at trial,” Mellor wrote in the judgment, referring to the share transfer.”

Read the full article at CoinDesk

“Eight years ago, controversial Australian businessman Craig Steven Wright publicly claimed to be the brains behind bitcoin. “I was the main part of it [and] other people helped me,” he told the BBC in 2016.”Some people will believe, some people won’t, and to tell you the truth, I don’t really care.”

The announcement sparked uproar and was followed by several court cases. Recently a consortium of crypto businesses mounted a case in the UK High Court, which sought to establish whether Dr Wright was the real Satoshi Nakamoto. In a bombshell ruling delivered in mid-March, Justice James Mellor decided that Dr Wright was not Satoshi and that he wasn’t the inventor of bitcoin.

Many in the industry doubted Dr Wright was the brains behind bitcoin.

In response, Dr Wright began suing some bitcoin software developers for copyright infringements. He also sued bloggers and podcasters who called him out in public.

In 2021, a consortium of crypto businesses known as COPA (Crypto Open Patent Alliance) mounted a case in the British High Court against Dr Wright. The case sought to establish a final legal judgement on whether Craig Wright was the real Satoshi Nakamoto.

Paul Grewal, Coinbase’s legal counsel, who was formerly vice-president of Facebook, told 7.30 COPA’s main goal has been to stop Dr Wright from suing individuals and companies in the crypto industry.

“This has not just been a campaign of litigation, it’s been a campaign of intimidation, bullying, and threats that have worked to discourage good faith actors who support bitcoin and all the principles underneath it,” Mr Grewal said.

During a 22-day trial, COPA’s legal representatives claimed Dr Wright produced forged evidence to support his claim to be Satoshi.

COPA alleged that he backdated word files, reproduced handwritten documents, deliberately altered PDF copies of the white paper to make it look like earlier versions, faked emails, and produced a hard drive with material created by ChatGPT.

Mr Grewal was astonished by the proceedings.

“As a judicial officer myself, I’ve never seen such a clear-cut example of a scorched earth litigation campaign, relying upon such fraudulent representations and forged documents,” he said.”

Read the full article on ABC

“Despite his claims to the contrary, Australian computer scientist Craig Wright is not the mysterious Bitcoin creator who goes by the name Satoshi Nakamoto, a London judge ruled Thursday.

The presiding judge, James Mellor, announced his four-part opinion shortly after the case wrapped.

“First,” he said, “Dr. Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin White Paper. Second, Dr. Wright is not the person who adopted or operated under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto in the period 2008 to 2011. Third, Dr. Wright is not the person who created the Bitcoin system. And, fourth, he is not the author of the initial versions of the Bitcoin software,” Mellor told the court.

During the trial, Wright presented evidence intended to prove he was Satoshi, but expert witnesses for both the prosecution and defense agreed that the documents he provided were forged. The documents he provided, which were supposed to prove his authorship of Bitcoin, included the use of software that didn’t exist at the time when the documents were made. It was also determined that ChatGPT helped make one of the documents.”

Read the full article on the Daily Beast

“

Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? A ruling from Britain’s high court Thursday has at least narrowed down who Satoshi is not.

For eight years, Australian computer scientist Craig Wright has claimed that he was the man behind “Satoshi Nakamoto,” the pseudonym that masked the identity of the creator of bitcoin. His claim was vehemently rejected by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance, or Copa, a nonprofit group of technology and cryptocurrency firms, who brought the case to court.

In his ruling, Justice James Mellor said Wright did not invent bitcoin, was not the man behind Satoshi, or the author of the initial versions of the bitcoin software. Further explanation will emerge when Mellor’s written statement is published at a later date.

“Having considered all the evidence and submissions presented to me in this trial, I’ve reached the conclusion that the evidence is overwhelming,” he said, according to a court transcript.”

Read the full article on CBS News

“After a lengthy legal dispute, London’s High Court of Justice has formally determined that Australian computer scientist Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin.

A particularly noteworthy tactic used by Wright’s team “repeatedly” was that, if Wright was not truly Satoshi Nakamoto, then the real Satoshi would have to unmask himself to disprove the claim definitively. More than anything else, this particular claim has unearthed a large volume of interest in Satoshi’s true identity. For example, as the trial was approaching in January 2024, nearly $1 million worth of Bitcoin was transferred into Satoshi’s wallet from an anonymous source, arousing coverage from major media sites that Bitcoin’s creator might reveal himself. The hubbub from this event led to rampant speculation, as image macros began circulating claiming that characters from the two simplified Japanese scripts, katakana and hiragana, would be pronounced as “Satoshi Nakamoto” while resembling the English letters to the name of popular Satoshi candidate Hal Finney.

Even if Bitcoin was created by enthusiasts in the codebreaking and cryptography scene, this claim is somewhat dubious, as it would require mixing and matching two different Japanese scripts in a haphazard manner. For example, the syllable “to” in Satoshi is a different alphabet than the same syllable in Nakamoto, and there seems to be no steady rule for when these two writing systems alternate. Still, Hal Finney has been dead since 2014, which would explain why Satoshi has remained silent as Bitcoin blossomed to the extreme extent it has in the last ten years.

If nothing else, renewed speculation of this nature was a clear sign that the trial had captured Bitcoiners’ collective imagination on the subject. It was a major point of interest then, when multiple early developers and Bitcoin collaborators began submitting private correspondence with Satoshi into the public record to be used as evidence. Adam Back, developer of the 90s “Hashcash” protocol that directly inspired Bitcoin’s mining algorithm, revealed a brief email correspondence initiated by Satoshi where the two discussed Hashcash’s relevance to Bitcoin. Early collaborator Martii “Sirius” Malmi, on the other hand, released a much larger tranche of emails on a broad range of looser topics, totaling 120 pages in all. These emails gave new insight into the personality of Bitcoin’s creator and likely would never have surfaced without the criminal proceedings.

In any event, as soon as the proceedings had concluded, Justice James Mallor cited the “overwhelming evidence” as he made an immediate ruling against Wright’s claims. COPA released some of the evidence against Wright independently, including the particularly damning accusation that Wright has used ChatGPT to forge documents “on an industrial scale.” Their legal team accused Wright of a “massive campaign of dishonesty and forgery” that “stray[ed] into farce,” going so far as to claim that Wright was actively fabricating new documents during the course of the five-week trial. Mallor claimed he would give a more detailed account of his reasons at a later date, but the actual verdict is clear: Craig Wright is not Satoshi, is not the author of the white paper, and did not create Bitcoin or its software.

The importance of this ruling is clear for two main reasons: not only does it prevent Wright from continuing his years-long practice of initiating defamation lawsuits against individuals and media outlets that deny his Satoshi claim, it also prevents him from suing developers on the basis of copyright infringement. This “chilling effect” on active Bitcoin developers is a major reason why COPA decided to take on this battle. If nothing else, a firm legal precedent will make it substantially easier to dismiss similar claims in the future. COPA has filed a purely civil suit against Wright, which is unlikely to lead to any sort of direct monetary reparation and certainly will not result in incarceration. Still, the full written judgment has yet to be released.”

Read the full article on Bitcoin Magazine