Summary
English High Court judgment definitively ruling that Dr Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. Mr Justice Mellor found Wright had forged evidence “on a grand scale” — 47 instances identified — and “lied to the Court extensively and repeatedly.” Four declarations were granted in favor of COPA; Wright was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for potential perjury prosecution. The judgment is the primary legal document establishing that Wright is not Bitcoin’s creator, narrowing the live candidate field to Back, Finney (deceased), and Szabo.
Key Points
- Case: Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) v Dr Craig Wright, [2024] EWHC 1198 (Ch), English High Court, Intellectual Property Court.
- Judge: Mr Justice Mellor. Six-week trial; oral judgment March 2024; written judgment published May 20, 2024.
- Core finding: Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto and has no claim to the Bitcoin White Paper, the Bitcoin System, or original Bitcoin software source code.
- 47 instances of forgery identified. Documents purportedly from 2008–2011 were created shortly before trial. Mellor: Wright engaged in forgery “on a grand scale” and used “Courts as a vehicle for fraud.”
- Wright described as “an extremely slippery witness” who “lied to the Court extensively and repeatedly.”
- Four oral declarations granted in COPA’s favor regarding Wright’s lack of authorship and ownership.
- Worldwide anti-suit injunction preventing Wright from asserting Satoshi authorship claims in any jurisdiction.
- CPS referral: Wright and witness Stefan Matthews referred to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider perjury prosecution.
- Contempt proceedings: Separate contempt judgment followed ([2024] EWHC 3315 (Ch)); Wright found in contempt.
- The August 2008 emails between “Satoshi” and Adam Back — which later became central to Carreyrou’s NYT investigation — were produced during discovery in this litigation.
Newsletter Angles
- The judgment is the legal foundation for treating the Satoshi question as genuinely open. Wright’s elimination via fraud ruling means the NYT’s narrow field (Back, Finney, Szabo) is the legitimate remaining pool — not a list that includes a known fraudster.
- The August 2008 emails produced in this trial are the same emails Carreyrou cited as circumstantial evidence against Back. The trial intended to prove Wright’s identity inadvertently generated evidence pointing elsewhere.
- The “Courts as a vehicle for fraud” language and the CPS referral set up a sharp contrast: Wright tried to use litigation to assert Satoshi identity; Back is in a process (SPAC/SEC) that may compel it through disclosure, not litigation.
- Worldwide injunction preventing Wright from claiming authorship means any future Satoshi claim must survive legal scrutiny — raising the bar for what counts as proof.
Entities Mentioned
- Craig Wright — primary subject; definitively ruled NOT Satoshi Nakamoto; forged evidence; CPS referral
- Adam Back — August 2008 emails produced in this trial; these emails later cited by NYT as circumstantial evidence
- Satoshi Nakamoto — the identity Wright falsely claimed; this ruling narrows the live candidate field
- Bitcoin — Wright’s fraudulent authorship claims concerned Bitcoin’s foundational documents
Concepts Mentioned
- Bitcoin Origin Mystery — this ruling eliminates the most legally active false candidate; narrows the field
- Cypherpunk Movement — the community whose membership is central to all candidate theories
Quotes
“Dr Wright lied to the Court extensively and repeatedly.” — Mr Justice Mellor
Wright engaged in forgery “on a grand scale” and used Courts “as a vehicle for fraud.” — Mr Justice Mellor
Notes
Primary legal document — the definitive judicial ruling on Wright’s Satoshi claim. The judgment PDF is stored in raw/COPA-v-Wright-Judgment.pdf. The ruling is English law and not directly binding on US courts, but its factual findings about forged documents have been widely accepted across jurisdictions. The contempt judgment ([2024] EWHC 3315 (Ch)) followed in December 2024. Wright subsequently received civil restraint orders limiting further vexatious litigation.