CoinDesk: ‘Craig Wright “Committed Perjury” in U.K. Trial Over Satoshi Claims, COPA Says’

A crypto alliance accusing Craig Wright of committing forgeries in attempting to prove he’d invented Bitcoin plans to ask U.K. prosecutors to consider if the computer scientist perjured himself during an ongoing trial.

“Following the evidence in this trial, it is clearer than ever – clear beyond doubt – that Dr. Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto . He did not write the Bitcoin white paper, produce the Bitcoin code or implement the Bitcoin system,” COPA Counsel Jonathan Hough said.

Wright was accused by COPA and a group of Bitcoin developers of committing forgeries in his attempts to prove he was Satoshi. On Tuesday, COPA also accused Wright of being a “dishonest witness” and attempting “very serious fraud” while testifying in court.

COPA said emails concerning Wright’s former lawyers submitted to the court during the trial (that Wright later defended were “spoofed” by unnamed bad actors) and admissions that he edited the Bitcoin white paper as recently as November 2023 are “vivid emblems” of his lies.

Read the full article on CoinDesk

City AM: ‘London Bitcoin trial: Self-proclaimed creator “lied on an extraordinary scale”‘

The London Bitcoin trial is coming to an end as a senior barrister told the High Court today that throughout, Craig Wright attempted a “very serious fraud upon the court”.

Crypto Open Patent Alliance’s barrister Hough KC of 4 New Square Chambers was speaking to the court today outlining his closing arguments to the judge.

In his written submissions, he stated that “Wright has been shown to have lied on an extraordinary scale, and it is difficult to think of a precedent for what he has done.”

The barrister wrote “even when the extent of [Wright] dishonesty and forgery was exposed to him in cross examination, he doubled down, forging further documents during the trial, blaming a litany of characters, asserting implausible technical excuses and suggesting a vast and ever growing conspiracy to frame him, all in an effort to evade his own responsibility”.

Read the full article on CityAM

Law360: ‘Wright Blames Enemies For Forged Email In Satoshi Trial’

“Craig Wright hit back on Friday at accusations that he forged an email amid a trial over his claims that he is the inventor of bitcoin, telling a London court that an enemy could have doctored the message to sabotage his case.

Craig Wright has denied manipulating email evidence in February during the ongoing High Court trial over his controversial claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

The Australian computer scientist emphatically denied manipulating email evidence in late February during the High Court trial over his controversial claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto — the cryptocurrency’s pseudonymous inventor — which is still underway.

Wright, who was recalled to give evidence after concerns were raised about the email on Monday, said that he had not faked it to mislead the court about what information he had shared with his former lawyers, Ontier LLP, in 2019.

Jonathan Hough KC of 4 New Square Chambers, representing the Crypto Open Patent Alliance, asked Wright if he had “forged an email during trial to back up a dishonest account.” The alliance, known as COPA, is a group of developers challenging Wright’s claim to ownership of the bitcoin intellectual property.

“No,” Wright replied, before offering technical explanations for the anomalous email.

Wright later claimed that the email could have been faked by a third party to scuttle his case. He told the court that he suspected several people of plotting to sabotage him and that his home had been bugged and broken into multiple times.”

Read the full article at Law360

CoinDesk: ‘Craig Wright Accuses Critics of Bugging His House, Spoofing Emails to Bring Him Back to Court’

“Craig Wright accused critics of bugging his home and spoofing an email he’s been accused of doctoring during a Friday cross-examination in the U.K. trial probing his claims of having invented Bitcoin.

Spoofing involves changing the metadata of an email to – among other things – make it look like it was sent from a different address.

When asked by presiding Judge James Mellor if he could specify who did the spoofing, Wright said, “Unfortunately not. I suspect a number of people, My Lord.”

On Friday, Wright vehemently denied accusations made by COPA of backdating the email in question to support a statement he’d made in court the previous week concerning his former legal representatives at Ontier.

Wright instead blamed the timestamp and other discrepancies on email spoofing, spam folders, domain migrations, surveillance and hacking.

Judge Mellor asked why someone seeking Wright’s downfall would doctor an email to support something he’d said, to which Wright replied, “Oh, no. It doesn’t support.”

He said that the email was doctored by a malicious actor to fabricate an excuse to bring him back to court.”

Read the full article on CoinDesk

CoinDesk: ‘Craig Wright to Face New Allegations of Forgery in COPA Trial Over Ontier Emails’

“After Wright made a reference last week to some emails between him and his former legal representatives at Ontier, his current lawyers were compelled to submit those emails to evidence. An inconsistency forced them to check with Ontier on the accuracy of the correspondence submitted by Wright’s wife Ramona Watts. Ontier then responded the emails appeared to be “not genuine.”

COPA is set to put the new allegations of forgery to Wright on Friday.

Counsel for both COPA and Wright this week tried to undermine expert witnesses for the other party, particularly questioning their “independence.” Wright’s team on Monday questioned COPA expert witness Patrick Madden on why he’d enlisted the help of COPA’s counsel at Bird & Bird LLP to organize the findings of his investigation into Wright’s claims instead of seeking independent help. On Wednesday, the COPA camp, in turn, asked Wright’s expert witness ZeMing Gao, who has authored multiple essays asserting Wright is Satoshi, whether he was truly an objective expert.

In addition to Gao, cryptography and security expert Sarah Meiklejohn took the stand for COPA on Wednesday to defend – among other things – her findings indicating key cryptographic signings Wright did as proof he’s Satoshi may have been inadequate.”

Read the full article on CoinDesk

Forbes: ‘Craig Wright’s Own Legal Team Expose More Potential Forgeries’

“In the latest update in the trial of COPA vs Craig Wright, a significant development arose regarding Wright’s claim as Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of bitcoin. During the trial on Monday, as part of a mandatory disclosure, Wright’s solicitors provided the court with potentially forged documents. The disclosure was part of evidence presented by Wright’s former solicitors from Ontier Law, whom Wright had previously dismissed.

On Monday afternoon, Wright’s lawyers revealed further documents, suggesting another potential fraud attempt by Wright. These documents, screenshots of the Mind Your Own Business software, were scrutinized on Friday. COPA’s representative, Jonathan Hough, examined them for financial record inaccuracies, focusing on alleged backdated documents. Hough challenged Wright’s assertion that a MYOB update caused these inaccuracies, accusing Wright of presenting a “pack of lies”.”

Read the full story at Forbes

CoinDesk: ‘Craig Wright’s Former Lawyers Say Emails Shared by Wife Are Fake as COPA Trial Heats Up’

“Emails shared by Craig Wright’s wife as evidence in the ongoing trial probing whether he’d invented bitcoin (BTC) are “not genuine,” Wright’s former lawyers said in court, as the fourth week of the legal proceedings kicked off Monday in London.

The emails between Wright and his former representatives at Ontier became part of the trial after the self-proclaimed bitcoin inventor referenced them while he was under cross-examination last week. The emails were then shared by Wright’s wife Ramona Watts with his current counsel at London law firm Shoosmiths, who in turn reached out to Ontier to confirm their accuracy.

Wright claimed Ontier had access to the Australian accounting platform MYOB in 2019, and that he had the emails to prove it. Those emails that Wright’s wife then shared with Shoosmiths were doctored, according to Ontier.

Shoosmiths disclosed the emails and Ontier’s response in court on Monday. The documents are now set to be analyzed by lawyers for both Wright and the plaintiff, the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA).”

Read the full story at CoinDesk

Forbes: ‘Craig Wright’s Satoshi Claim At Risk After Whitepaper Edits’

“In London’s Rolls Building, within the Royal Courts of Justice, the trial of COPA vs Craig Wright continues, aiming to establish whether or not Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto. Further developments and testimonies have emerged throughout the trial’s third week, challenging Wright’s claims.

One of the key aspects of the trial this week was the presentation of animations based on edit logs that Wright had included in his disclosures. The animations were created by developers using the logs.

The footage shows modifications to the bitcoin whitepaper being made, suggesting that such alterations could be interpreted as consistent with backdating or fabricating the document. This visual representation demonstrated the full extent of the edits. Gunning asked Wright, “If you were forging the whitepaper, that is how you would do it, isn’t it?” Wright replied, “Yes,”.

Wright stated that the edits were a demonstration for his representatives at Shoosmiths, his law firm. The animation showed a red flash when Wright was on a call with his lawyers at Shoosmiths while making the edits.”

Read the full story at Forbes

CoinDesk: ‘Craig Wright Admits to Editing Bitcoin White Paper Presented in COPA Trial’

“The trial to prove whether or not Wright is the anonymous creator of the bitcoin white paper completed its third week. COPA wants to prove that Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto is a lie afforded by “industrial style forgeries,” and the bitcoin developers lawyer Alexander Gunning is helping them.

On Friday, Gunning showed that Wright made edits to the bitcoin whitepaper in his “LaTeX files,” which Wright agreed was accurate. Wright said the edits were simply a demonstration for his representatives at Shoosmiths (his law firm).

“You were not showing this to anyone, we know the times you were showing this to Shoosmiths, you were doing it for yourself,” Gunning said.

“What you are doing is tweaking parameters.. to get them to fit ” the layout of the bitcoin whitepaper, Gunning added. The file was uploaded as recently as November 2023, Gunning said.

Gunning ended his questioning by asking: “Your claim to be Satoshi Nakomoto is a fraudulent claim isn’t it?” which Wright disputed.”

Read the full story at CoinDesk

Bitcoin Royalty Descends on the Satoshi Nakamoto Trial

Earlier this month, a trial began in the UK High Court, the purpose of which is to challenge Wright’s claim to being the creator of Bitcoin. The case was filed by a consortium of crypto firms called the Crypto Open Patent Alliance, which is asking the court to declare that Wright is not Satoshi, thereby limiting his ability to found further litigation on the claim. COPA claims that Wright has fabricated his evidence and repeatedly changed his story as new inconsistencies come to light. It called on the early bitcoiners to help prove it.

Among those who testified were Adam Back, Mike Hearn, Martti Malmi, and Zooko Wilcox-O’Hearn, each of whom contributed to the early development of Bitcoin in their own way. With the exception of Hearn, who had a polished manner and dressed sharply, the witnesses had the air of technologists: softly spoken and somewhat awkward, but quietly authoritative. Earlier in the trial, Wright had faced a grueling seven-day cross-examination, in which he rejected hundreds of claims of forgery and misrepresentation. The evidence supplied by the bitcoiners, COPA hoped, would help dismantle his story.

The figures called upon by COPA to testify each made a distinct mark on Bitcoin. Back created a precursor technology called Hashcash (although Wright disputes its relevance) and corresponded with Satoshi as the Bitcoin creator drafted the white paper. Satoshi tasked Malmi with curating Bitcoin.org, which hosted educational materials. Hearn was one of the earliest contributors to the Bitcoin codebase. And Wilcox-O’Hearn was among the first to blog about Bitcoin, spreading the gospel. As Bitcoin grew, these early collaborators became themselves revered in crypto circles for their place in Bitcoin lore.

In witness statements submitted to the court ahead of the trial, the bitcoiners provided accounts in support of COPA’s case. Back detailed a 2008 email exchange in which Satoshi appeared to be unfamiliar with a proposal by cryptographer Wei Dai. In his own written evidence, Wright had described Dei’s work as an inspiration for Bitcoin. Malmi contested Wright’s timeline of the correspondence between him and Satoshi and Wright’s description of technical arrangements relating to the Bitcoin.org forum. Separately, he asserted that Satoshi embraced the term “cryptocurrency,” contrary to Wright’s account. In his statement, Hearn recounted a dinner in 2016 at which he posed questions to Wright that he believed Satoshi would be able to answer. Some of Wright’s responses were “in the general area, but garbled;” others were “only slightly better than Star Trek-style technobabble.” Wilcox-O’Hearn simply testified Satoshi never sent him any bitcoin, as Wright has claimed he did.

In the course of Wednesday and Thursday, the bitcoiners took to the witness box to be cross-examined on the contents of their statements by Wright’s legal counsel, Lord Anthony Grabiner and Craig Orr.

Grabiner pressed Hearn on the quality of his recall with respect to the dinner, about which the court had received a contradictory account from one of Wright’s witnesses. Hearn acknowledged a level of haziness, but insisted he remembered “the important parts” in which he asked about Bitcoin. Grabiner proposed that Wright’s responses had been stilted because he was wary of the possibility Hearn had an ulterior motive for his questioning. At the time Hearn worked for a company, R3, that Grabiner claimed could be considered a competitor to nChain, a firm with which Wright was associated. Hearn rejected the claim: “I didn’t know anything about Wright’s work,” he said. “I still don’t.”

Read the full story on WIRED