Close Menu
    Donate
    Jail Time
    Satoshi

    Could Wright’s Satoshi Claim Land Him Behind Bars?

    No Comments9 Mins Read688 Views

    Features update from COPA Closing Statements on the 03/12/2024, the outcome of the trial and the final written judgement of the 05/20/2024.

    The Legal Quagmire of Craig Wright: Potential Consequences of the COPA Trial

    It is the question in everyone’s mind. Could Craig Wright go to jail for this? The legal consequences following a high-profile trial such as the one involving Craig Wright are a hot topic. But it’s a nuanced topic with no straightforward answer. Generally, in the UK, the prosecution of offenses beyond perverting the course of justice, such as allegations of perjury or forgery within a trial, is not routine. Serious charges indeed, yet the rarity lies in the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which is akin to the District Attorney’s Office in the US, opting to initiate further legal action based on courtroom conduct and referrals from the prosecution and judge. The threshold for such prosecution is high, and the CPS typically weighs factors like the evidence’s impact on the trial’s outcome and the broader public interest before deciding to pursue a case.

    Craig Wright, the controversial figure claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, will be faced with more troubles in his legal battle with the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA). The outcome of this trial did debunk his claim and therefore exposed him to serious legal repercussions, especially since the verdict is going against him. These could include charges of perjury, perverting the course of justice, and falsification of documents. But how possible is it, that these charges will lead to prosecution?

    1. Perjury Risks

    The essence of perjury lies in intentionally lying or making misleading statements under oath. Throughout the COPA trial, Wright has presented various documents and testimonies asserting his identity as Nakamoto. These were proven to be deliberately false, so Wright could face perjury charges, a serious offense that carries severe penalties, including imprisonment. The determination of perjury will hinge on the evidence’s veracity and Justice Mellor’s phrasing when presenting them to the CPS.

    Perjury, a serious criminal offence in England and Wales, is defined under the Perjury Act 1911. It involves making a false statement material to a proceeding, knowing it to be false or not believing it to be true, while lawfully sworn as a witness or interpreter in a judicial proceeding. The prosecution of perjury requires corroboration beyond just one witness’s word against another.

    The offence of perjury is indictable only, meaning it must be heard in the Crown Court, and carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. However, not every instance of lying in court results in a prosecution, as the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) assesses whether it’s in the public interest to prosecute each case. There are no specific sentencing guidelines currently in place for perjury​​.

    Maximum Penalty: 7 Years Imprisonment

    2. Perverting the Course of Justice

    Perverting the course of justice involves actions aimed at misdirecting or obstructing the legal process. This can include falsifying evidence, which Wright was accused of. The trial has brought to light several inconsistencies in Wright’s evidence and claims. If it’s established that Wright intentionally fabricated evidence to support his claims, it could be seen as an attempt to pervert the course of justice, a grave offence in the legal system.

    In 2021, approximately 570 offenders were sentenced for perverting the course of justice in the Crown Court. About 51% of these offenders received immediate custody, while 43% were given a suspended sentence order. The remaining were dealt with by community orders, fines, discharges, or other means. The average custodial sentence length for those receiving immediate custody was one year.

    Average Penalty: 1 Year Imprisonment

    3. Falsification of Documents

    The heart of COPA’s case against Wright involves allegations of falsified documents. Expert witnesses from both sides have reportedly agreed on the recent creation of certain documents Wright presented. If the court concludes that Wright knowingly presented forged documents as genuine, he may face charges of document falsification. This charge is particularly serious given the high-profile nature of the case and its implications on the cryptocurrency community.

    This type of offense might be categorized under broader categories such as fraud or document forgery, depending on the nature and context of the falsification. The specific penalties would depend on the particular statutes under which the falsification falls. For instance, under the Fraud Act 2006, making or supplying articles for use in fraud (which could include falsification of documents) can carry a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

    Maximum Penalty: 10 Years Imprisonment

    4. Forgery Allegations

    At the heart of COPA’s case are allegations that Wright forged documents to prove he is Nakamoto. Expert witnesses have reportedly agreed that certain documents presented by Wright are recent creations, not authentic. If Wright knowingly presented forged documents, he might face forgery charges. Given the high-profile nature of the case, such charges could carry significant legal consequences.

    Forgery and related offenses are covered under various sections of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. This Act outlines various offenses related to the creation, use, possession, and distribution of false documents or counterfeit currency. The penalties for these offenses can be severe, with some carrying a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both​.

    Maximum Penalty: 10 Years Imprisonment

    The Issue of SLAPPs

    Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) are legal actions that are often considered to be more about intimidation than seeking justice. The primary aim is to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. These lawsuits are seen as an abuse of the judicial process and are often filed by individuals or corporations against critics or activists in an attempt to suppress their free speech rights on matters of public concern.

    When individuals like Hodlonaut, a prominent figure in the Bitcoin community, are targeted by such lawsuits, it brings to light the abuse of the legal system to stifle free speech and debate on matters of public interest. Hodlonaut‘s experience highlights the distress and financial burden that SLAPPs can impose. His assertion that SLAPPs are not about seeking justice but about creating hardship for the defendant resonates with many who have faced similar legal battles. The fact that he mentions the need to defend against baseless suits at great personal expense underscores the chilling effect SLAPPs have on open discourse and how they can effectively force individuals to self-censor to avoid litigation.

    In the context of the COPA vs. Wright trial, the comments from Hodlonaut reflect the broader concern about the potential misuse of the legal system. Witnesses like Robert Jenkins and Shoaib Yousuf, both of whom testified in Hodlonaut’s trial against Wright, have provided statements that are now being compared and contrasted with their testimonies in the COPA vs. Wright case, shedding light on the intricate web of claims surrounding the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. Hodlonaut’s critique of SLAPPs aims criticism at legal strategies that aim to exhaust the resources and resolve of opponents rather than genuinely seeking to establish the truth of the matter at hand.

    The issue with SLAPP is that there is very little in the UK legal system from stopping someone doing this, hence the possibility of a conviction for this matter is nearly non-existent.

    Implications for the Cryptocurrency World

    The trial’s outcome has carried significant weight beyond Wright’s legal woes. It has not impacted the credibility of Bitcoin’s origins and from the price action of BTC it might have influenced public and institutional trust in the cryptocurrency sector. For the broader community, the resolution of this case represented a crucial moment in establishing the authenticity and integrity of the Bitcoin blockchain narrative.

    The COPA trial against Craig Wright was more than a legal battle over the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto; it was a defining moment with potential criminal implications for Wright and significant consequences for the cryptocurrency world. As the court found against Wright, the spectre of perjury, perversion of justice, and falsification charges loom large.

    Update From COPA Closing Statements

    image 184

    Update from Mr Justice Mellor Asset Freezing Order

    image 215

    Update Following Final Written Ruling

    In reviewing the judgment, it appears that the court did not explicitly state that Craig Wright would face criminal charges following this decision. However, the findings and statements made by Justice Mellor strongly imply that Wright’s actions could potentially lead to further legal consequences.

    The court found that Wright had engaged in extensive and repeated lying, fabrication, and forgery of documents. Specifically, Justice Mellor stated:

    • “Dr Wright lied to the Court extensively and repeatedly. Most of his lies related to the documents he had forged which purported to support his claim. All his lies and forged documents were in support of his biggest lie: his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto”​​​​.
    • “Dr Wright has lied so much over so many years that, on certain points, it can be difficult to pinpoint what actually happened. Those difficulties do not detract from the fact that there is a very considerable body of evidence against Dr Wright being Satoshi”​​​​.

    Given the court’s detailed findings of forgery and dishonesty, it is possible that these actions could lead to criminal investigations or charges by relevant authorities, although this would be a separate process from the civil trial conducted by the High Court. This could happen in just a few days. The court did note that the question of further relief and potential actions would be addressed at a subsequent hearing​​.

    Therefore, while the judgment itself does not state that charges will follow, the evidence and conclusions drawn by Justice Mellor certainly lay a foundation that could prompt criminal proceedings.

    Author Profile

    Lucy Walker
    Lucy Walker
    Lucy Walker covers finance, health and beauty since 2014. She has been writing for various online publications.
    3
    Share.

    Related Posts

    Add A Comment
    Leave A Reply