In a surprise turn of events, as Craig Wright seems to be winding down litigation against his opponents, Christen Ager-Hanssen (CAH), known for his role in the high-profile whistleblower case involving Craig Wright and nChain, appears to still be haunted by legal issues. Unconfirmed reports have alleged that he was sentenced to 10 months in prison in the UK for Contempt of Court. However we have not been able to independently confirm this and have sought more information from the court. The hearing from the website’s information took place on the 2nd of May 2024.
The committal to prison hearing (which was removed from the Court’s official website) appears to have taken place despite Ager-Hanssen’s absence from court, marking a controversial twist in what has become a multi-faceted legal battle for the history and future of Bitcoin. nChain, the company associated with BSV, that has instigated this legal action, had previously taken a possible injunction against CAH, so this latest hearing is possibly a result of failing to comply with that injunction and what prompted the nChain legal team to apply for a commital to prison.
We have exclusive information that Christen Ager-Hanssen himself was not aware of this hearing until this morning. He was surprised to find out and categorically stated that he has not been served with any papers, casting doubt as to what transpired in the court and if the wish of nChain was indeed granted by Mr Justice Jacobs. In case he is served, he is planning to appeal the decision.
In the UK, sentencing in absentia is generally unusual and often avoided because the law favors the defendant being present to hear the verdict and any sentencing remarks. However, it is technically possible under certain circumstances. According to the Criminal Procedure Rules, a court can proceed with sentencing in the absence of the defendant if they initially appeared but then absconded or refused to attend subsequent hearings.
This is often contingent upon the court being satisfied that the defendant has chosen voluntarily to absent themselves, implying a waiver of their right to be present. Additionally, the court must believe it is in the interest of justice to proceed, especially in cases where further delays could compromise the proceedings. Such decisions are often accompanied by careful consideration to ensure that the rights of the defense are not unduly compromised.
What is a Committal to Prison Hearing?
In the UK, an application for committal to prison is a serious legal action typically used as a last resort when an individual has failed to comply with a court order. This process is often associated with cases of contempt of court, where a party has either disobeyed a legal order, interfered with the administration of justice, or been found in breach of certain court-imposed restrictions. Here’s how the process generally works:
Committal to prison can be pursued when a person:
- Fails to pay money they owe under a judgment (though this is rare since other methods of enforcement are usually preferred).
- Disobeys a court order, such as an injunction or a mandatory order requiring them to do something (e.g., disclose documents, leave a property, etc.).
- Engages in behavior that interferes with the course of justice, such as threatening witnesses or breaking court-imposed rules.
If the court finds the respondent guilty of contempt, it can impose various sanctions, including a committal to prison. The length of imprisonment can depend on the nature of the contempt, the harm caused, and other factors such as the respondent’s intent and previous behavior. In some cases, the court may suspend the sentence on condition that the respondent complies with specific requirements.
Without all of the facts, it’s impossible to make a statement about this case, but in general terms the increasing use of criminal law to silence whistleblowers is disturbing and an affront to justice.
This case like many others, demonstrates that UK whistleblowing laws are out of step with justice and do not do what they are supposed to do, which is to protect whistleblowers against criminals.
Georgina Halford-Hall (CEO WhistleblowersUK & Director of Strategy & Policy All Party Parliamentary Group for Whistleblowing)
Georgina Halford-Hall in exclusive commentary for What The Finance said that “in failing whistleblowers these laws also fail the public interest which is why we continue to call on the U.K. government to replace existing law with the Whistleblowing Bill which is currently going through Parliament championed by Mary Robinson MP, chair of the APPG for Whistleblowing.
“We will be discussing the inadequacy and duplicity of existing laws and demonstrating why whistleblowers are the cornerstone of a fair and transparent society during the UK’s second Whistleblowing Awareness Week 1-5th July in Westminster, said the CEO of WhistleblowersUK and Director of Strategy & Policy All Party Parliamentary Group for Whistleblowing”.
Background of the Case
Ager-Hanssen’s legal troubles stem from his actions during Craig Wright’s court case, where he disclosed internal communications that suggested Craig Wright, an Australian computer scientist and businessman, might not be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin. He also disclosed numerous facts which pointed to the internal turmoil and doubt nChain was suffering from, in the lead up to the trial. These revelations were crucial during the High Court trial and helped to close the case against Craig Wright’s fraudulent claim that he was Satoshi, the creator of Bitcoin.
During the London High Court proceedings involving nChain, both Craig Wright and Stefan Matthews expressed significant criticism towards Christen Ager-Hanssen. Wright accused Ager-Hanssen of setting up an ambush by organizing a mock trial aimed at undermining Wright’s credibility and forcing key witnesses like Matthews to withdraw their support. This mock trial was described by Wright as a hostile interrogation designed to challenge his claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto.
Moreover, Matthews provided testimony of further alleged contentious interactions with Ager-Hanssen. He described an incident where Ager-Hanssen allegedly attempted to take control of nChain, which included physically securing parts of the company’s premises and tampering with internal communications. These actions, Matthews suggested, were detrimental to the company’s stability and governance, leading to Ager-Hanssen’s dismissal. Both men threatened to litigate against Ager-Hanssen from the stand.
nChain’s Response
In response to Ager-Hanssen’s disclosures, nChain has reportedly taken aggressive legal actions, including securing injunctions against him. The company, which has been closely associated with Craig Wright, by employing him in the past and helping with his legal costs against Bitcoin devs and media personalities, has allegedly not only pursued legal avenues but has also initiated physical surveillance efforts reminiscent of those experienced by Bitcoin supporter, Hodlonaut, in Norway.
Hodlonaut sued by nChain and Craig Wright suffered from questionable tactics including a doxxing campaign, aggressive litigation, surveillance and personal intimidation for him and his family in court.
Current Developments
Sources indicate that Ager-Hanssen is currently not in the UK as these legal proceedings unfold. He is likely to have been out of the country since the beginning of the year. The escalation includes not only the court’s recent sentencing but also an ongoing hunt for Ager-Hanssen by nChain, which appears to be combining legal challenges with surveillance tactics to locate and apprehend him.
Are Whistleblowers Protected?
In practice, whistleblowing protections in the UK have some significant limitations despite the legal framework established primarily through the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). PIDA is intended to protect whistleblowers from retaliation such as dismissal, discrimination, and other adverse treatment when they report wrongdoing. However, there are practical challenges and limitations that can hinder the effectiveness of these protections.
Firstly, whistleblowers often face real risks of retaliation, which can include dismissal or detrimental treatment in the workplace. Although the law prohibits such actions, enforcing these rights can be complex and daunting for whistleblowers, who may need to demonstrate a direct link between their whistleblowing and the detrimental treatment they suffered. This can be a substantial barrier, particularly if a whistleblower has opted for anonymity, which might complicate proving such connections in legal proceedings.
Moreover, while PIDA does allow anonymous reporting, maintaining anonymity can limit the whistleblower’s ability to engage fully with the process and can affect the credibility and thoroughness of the investigation into their allegations. This anonymity might protect them from immediate workplace backlash but can also impede their case if they seek legal recourse for any retaliation experienced.
The effectiveness of PIDA has been questioned, with criticisms focusing on its inability to prevent initial retaliation effectively, rather than merely providing remedies after the fact. The lack of immediate and proactive protections means whistleblowers might still suffer retaliation before any legal remedy can be obtained.
Implications for the Community
This case is particularly significant for the Bitcoin community as it touches upon the sensitive issue of the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. Ager-Hanssen’s revelations during the trial have fueled debates and discussions about fraud, transparency, the ethics of whistleblowing, and proving digital identity in the blockchain space.
Bitcoin supporter and court journalist BitNorbert has shared a response on social media that highlights the escalating legal battle involving Christen Ager-Hanssen and nChain. In his post, BitNorbert points out that the committal hearing against Ager-Hanssen was listed in court records, which he verified through the Wayback Machine. This underscores the seriousness and authenticity of the proceedings.
BitNorbert expresses a keen interest in the unusual nature of the case, labeling it as “next-level lawfare.” His use of the term suggests that he perceives the legal actions as part of a broader, more aggressive strategy by nChain. He also notes his curiosity about further details of the hearing, particularly whether Ager-Hanssen was present, indicating a significant gap in the public details available about the event.
Jason Deane’s response to the news of Christen Ager-Hanssen’s sentencing reflects a mix of surprise and skepticism, highlighting the need for more information and transparency regarding the case. Deane emphasizes the gravity of the situation given the serious nature of the prison sentence.
All eyes are now on the forthcoming final written ruling by Mr Justice Mellor, expected on May 9, 2024. This ruling is anticipated to provide further clarity on Craig Wright’s claims of being Satoshi Nakamoto and could have significant implications for the legal standings and the reputations involved.
Christen Ager-Hanssen’s case is in a critical turning point. Whistleblowing is not easy and carries a lot of legal risks. As we await further developments, the outcome of this saga could change legal precedents in the blockchain industry.
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