Kleiman v Wright Day 14: Plaintiff Strategy of Painting Craig Wright as Serial Forger Backfires

Cryptocurrency law

It is Day 14 of the controversial Kleiman v Wright trial, which is centered on the real identity of the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto who authored the Bitcoin white paper and allegedly mined 1.1 million Bitcoin, now valued at over $63 billion.

The plaintiff, represented by Ira Kleiman, is accusing computer scientist Craig Wright of cheating David Kleiman of the credit of co-writing the Bitcoin white paper and up to half of the Satoshi coins the two allegedly mined together.

The defense is arguing that Wright solely wrote the Bitcoin white paper under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto and that there is no evidence of a partnership between Wright and David Kleiman in co-authoring the historic white paper and the mining of the 1.1 million coins.

Wright Takes Stand Again

Wright has previously taken the stand as a witness for the plaintiff; and now, he takes the stand again as the last witness for his defense. It seems that many are speculating that Wright’s lawyers did not want to have him testify again, and it was only Wright himself who insisted on doing so after witnessing a heated conversation between the parties concerned during the break.

It seems that Wright had won over his defense team as he was called in again to take the stand. Wright’s testimony further solidified the claim made by the defense through other witnesses that Wright was highly immersed in Japanese culture as he was influenced greatly by his grandfather on the maternal side, who served in the Australian army during World War II.

This then led to Wright choosing the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, a combination of two Japanese philosophers, when he wrote the Bitcoin white paper. After which, more about Wright’s career history was examined.

According to Wright, it was in 1998 when he was working for online casino Lasseters, that he first had the idea for Bitcoin. The token system Wright developed for the casino was the first version of what is now Bitcoin.

Minutes of a meeting Wright had with Allan Granger from the well-known accounting firm BDO was then presented as evidence of Wright proposing a P2P e-cash system. The proposal was rejected and never came to fruition. This compelling evidence shows a “precursor to Bitcoin,” and how Wright alone could have created it as Satoshi Nakamoto based on his past work experience.

The Bombshell

Previously, the plaintiff has resorted to attempting to discredit Wright and painting him as someone who has forged at least 40 emails presented as evidence. Although Wright has denied having forged even one email in his life, an expert witness for the plaintiff has alluded to Wright being the only one capable of forging said email exchanges between himself and David Kleiman.

Now, the bombshell comes from an email exchange between David Kleiman and Wright provided by Ira Kleiman, which the plaintiff has alleged was forged by Wright. The email was about Wright asking David Kleiman for help in a project called “bit cash,” and was the only email exchange between Wright and Kleiman that even made mention of anything similar to Bitcoin.

It was also discovered that the IP address where the email was sent from was actually one that allegedly Jamie Wilson, Wright’s former disgruntled CFO who also testified for the plaintiff, had access to. What seems to have shocked the plaintiff more is that it was not possible for Wright to have sent the said email in 2008 because the email address it was sent from, [email protected], was actually a family domain that represents the initials of Wright’s second wife Ramona, himself and their three children.

At the time the email was allegedly sent, Wright had not even met Ramona yet. In fact, the two met about two years later in 2010 and only became romantically involved in 2011—not to mention the fact that they did not have children until after 2011. How would their initials be used in an email sent in 2008?

With this established in court, it has now put in question who was actually the serial forger that the plaintiff had been making out to be as Wright? While Wright could not have sent those emails and did not have access to the said family domain until years after that particular email was sent, who could have forged it?

Earlier in the trial, Ira Kleiman said under oath that he still has access to his brother’s email and would even send himself a birthday email yearly from David Kleiman’s email account. Email evidence presented in court also showed that Ira Kleiman had over 30 email addresses he used to communicate with different persons or organizations.

Could Ira Kleiman have enlisted the help of Wilson, who seemed to have a grudge against Wright, to forge emails from Wright to David Kleiman in order to strengthen their case and get their hands on half of the Satoshi coins? Could using forged emails as evidence and attributing these forgeries to Wright have been the plaintiff grasping at straws in a case that lacks meaningful evidence for the plaintiff?

What could the jury have thought about this most recent information? Could it have completely tipped the case over to the defense’s side? The defense has rested their case, and closing arguments are on the schedule Wednesday. Soon, all of these questions will be answered.

 

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of The World Financial Review.