In a significant legal ruling on July 16, 2024, the High Court of Justice, presided over by Mr. Justice Mellor, handed down a detailed and consequential judgment in the case of the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) versus Craig Steven Wright.
This “identity” case, which has garnered considerable attention in both the legal and crypto communities, addresses intellectual property rights, freedom of expression, and the legitimacy of claims surrounding the identity of Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto.
Background of the Case
The origins of the case lie in Wright’s persistent claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, for a number of years, despite fierce opposition in social media. COPA, a non-profit organization created for removing patents as barriers to blockchain innovation, challenged these assertions, arguing that Wright’s claims were fraudulent and his orders to disrupt development damaging to the wider Bitcoin community. The judgment from the joint trial, referred to as the “Main COPA Judgment,” found that Wright had lied extensively and forged documents to support his claims.
The Craig Wright judgement just dropped, and this is a summary of it.
— Riccardo Spagni (@fluffypony) July 16, 2024
Source doc: https://t.co/eXaFBG1ddC
Judgment Summary:
In the case of COPA v Craig Wright, the High Court has ruled that Dr. Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. The judgment includes extensive findings of… https://t.co/h1YX4mFmH7
Key Points of the Judgment
The judgment, which spans multiple claims and involves numerous defendants, was structured to address a wide range of issues:
- Injunctions Against Wright: The court issued several injunctions to prevent Wright from pursuing or threatening legal actions based on his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. These injunctions were deemed necessary to prevent further vexatious litigation and to protect the interests of those in the Bitcoin community who had been affected by his false claims .
- Dissemination Order: COPA sought, and the court granted, an order requiring Wright to publish details of the court’s findings against him on his website, his social media accounts, and through other channels. This was aimed at dispelling any residual uncertainty regarding his claims .
- Costs and Financial Penalties: The court ordered Wright to pay all of COPA’s costs on an indemnity basis, reflecting the severity of his misconduct. This included a significant interim payment on account of costs, highlighting the financial burden imposed on COPA by Wright’s actions .
- Referral to the CPS: The judgment included a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for consideration of criminal charges against Wright, particularly focusing on perjury and the forgery of documents. This reflects the court’s view on the seriousness of Wright’s actions and the need for potential criminal accountability .
Wright’s Position and Response
Throughout the proceedings, Wright maintained that COPA had no standing to seek the injunctions and that the orders would unjustifiably interfere with his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the court found these arguments unpersuasive, noting that COPA and the Developers had a legitimate interest in preventing the re-litigation of issues already decided and protecting themselves from baseless legal threats.
The judgment indicated that Wright’s efforts to prove his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto were not only fraudulent but also a significant abuse of the judicial process across multiple jurisdictions, including the UK, Norway, and the USA. The court noted that his actions involved the presentation of falsified documents as evidence, intending to mislead the court and the public.
The severity of these accusations has led the court to refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to consider whether to commence prosecution against Wright for perjury and forgery of documents. This referral also raises the possibility of issuing a warrant for his arrest or seeking his extradition from his current location.
Wright’s legal team indicated that he did not intend to appeal the court’s decisions immediately, although he retains the right to seek permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal.
Craig has to announce on Twitter, Slack and his website that he is fraud 😂😂😂
— hodlonaut 80 IQ 10%er 🌮⚡🔑 🐝 (@hodlonaut) July 16, 2024
I told you guys, karma is real. https://t.co/TCcDa9AibN
Matthews’ Role and Potential Prosecution
In addition to Wright, the court has also scrutinized Stefan Matthews, a major player in supporting Wright’s claims. Matthews has been instrumental in promoting Wright’s assertion of being Satoshi Nakamoto, contributing significantly to the narrative over several years. The court expressed particular concern over Matthews’ testimony, which included a significant lie about receiving a version of the Bitcoin White Paper from Wright in August 2008.
This lie was deemed not only false but also highly cynical, considering the potential financial gains for both Wright and his supporters if Wright’s claim had been validated. Consequently, the court has decided to refer Matthews’ evidence to the CPS to consider whether he should also be prosecuted for perjury.
Human “Wrights”
Patent lawyer Stuart Pearce raised an intriguing point regarding the recent judgment in COPA v Wright, specifically concerning the balance between freedom of expression and the dissemination of false information. The judgment includes a critical discussion on whether Craig Wright should be free to express his belief that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, despite substantial evidence suggesting this claim is false.
This issue touches on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards the right to freedom of expression. However, this right is not absolute and may be subject to limitations, especially when it involves the protection of others’ rights and the maintenance of judicial authority.
The judgment highlights that while freedom of expression is a fundamental right, it does not extend to the propagation of false statements. This principle was underscored in the case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers, where it was established that “there is no human right to disseminate information that is not true.” The dissemination of misinformation is detrimental to a democratic society, which relies on informed citizens.
Pearce argues that the court’s decision to issue injunctions against Wright’s threats and legal actions based on his false claims was proportionate and necessary. However, he cautions against broader injunctions that could impinge on Wright’s right to freedom of expression by forcing the deletion of past statements and restraining future claims, viewing such measures as potentially excessive. This careful balancing act aims to protect the integrity of information in the public sphere while respecting individual rights.
More Changes to Legal Representation
In a not-so-surprising turn of events, Shoosmiths, Craig Wright’s supposedly favored law firm, has been replaced by Harcus Parker in the ongoing case of “Wright and others v Coinbase Global Inc. and others.” This change in legal representation reflects on a habit for Wright, as he entrusts his defense to a new team yet again. Both Craig Steven Wright and Wright International Investments Ltd. have transitioned their legal counsel from Shoosmiths to Harcus Parker.
What Does it Mean for the COBRA Ruling?
The judge set aside multiple orders in the COBRA claim, citing the fraudulent basis on which they were obtained. Specifically, the default judgment against COBRA, dated June 28, 2021, was nullified under CPR13.3(1)(b) due to its fraudulent nature. Additionally, other orders, including those granting permission to serve out dated April 21, 2021, and various cost orders from June 2022 and late 2023, were also annulled under CPR 3.1(7) and the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The court emphasized the necessity of correcting such misuse of jurisdiction and procedures to maintain the integrity of the legal process.
Craig Wright Responds
Craig Wright, now known by the pseudonym Satoshi Tominaga on Twitter, announced that he will comply with the court order requirements tomorrow. Wright indicated that he plans to appeal the decision on August 5th, 2024. He emphasized that this is the only X account he personally controls, possibly to clarify his official communication channel amidst the ongoing legal disputes he is facing.
This statement might signal his intention to adhere to legal protocols while preparing for his appeal, however his track record has much to say about him defying court orders. He is currently rumoured to be residing somewhere in South East Asia, where he keeps active on social media, and is unlikely to return to the UK in light of possible future rulings, unless of course he was to be extradited to face trial.
Implications & the Community
This judgment marks a critical moment in the ongoing saga of Bitcoin’s origins and the legal entanglements surrounding its creator’s identity. By firmly rejecting Wright’s claims and imposing significant legal and financial penalties, the court has tried to put an end in this saga. The decision also should serve as a cautionary tale for those who might attempt to manipulate the legal system to assert unfounded claims in the way Wright did.
For COPA and the broader Bitcoin community, the judgment is a victory that underscores the collective effort to protect the decentralized nature of Bitcoin and prevent misuse of intellectual property laws to stifle blockchain innovation. It remains to be seen how this ruling will influence future legal disputes in the space.
The Craig Wright case is not finished. If the CPS decides to prosecute we will have a criminal trial that can have dire consequences for those that have misused the legal system for so long. Unfortunately this will not be any time soon, as most criminal trials can take 2-3 years to end up in a court room.
So the wait for justice goes on…
Author Profile
- Lucy Walker covers finance, health and beauty since 2014. She has been writing for various online publications.
Latest entries
- April 25, 2025Global EconomicsWhistleblowers Unmask Schwab’s Toxic WEF Secrets
- April 9, 2025Global EconomicsTariff Tensions Drive Market Volatility
- March 18, 2025Global EconomicsRed in Name Only: Labour’s War on the UK Working Class
- March 7, 2025SatoshiCraig Wright Banned from UK Courts with Civil Restraint Order