In a recent development in the Bitcoin ownership dispute, a U.S. judge accused computer scientist Craig Wright of “contemptuous conduct” for failing to provide correct information related to $143 million in cryptocurrency. The case is between Wright, who claims to be the founder of Bitcoin, and Ira Kleiman who claimed rights to crypto mined by his late brother in 2022. The judge found in favor of Kleiman and linked company W&K. However, W&K says Wright never fully provided the personal information required to enforce the payment. As a result, the court was asked to impose fines of $250,000 per day and conduct contempt of court proceedings. The situation boils down to Wright’s refusal to provide basic data about his spouse and her assets in the unsealed form.
The designation of the form as attorney’s eyes only was “improper from the beginning”. The records were unsealed, and the form stated that Satoshi Nakomoto was Wright’s nickname or alias and that his assets had been transferred or assigned to other parties. Wright’s claim that the form should be kept confidential to avoid personal data exposure was factually false. Reinhart, the U.S. Magistrate Judge, called the evidence against Wright prima facie, meaning it showed evidence of contemptuous behavior. Wright has until May 18th to explain why investigators should not proceed with sanctions against him.
Wright has argued that the information he gave in the form was accurate, but some data requested is either restricted by the law or physically not possible to provide. Reinhart gave Wright and his team a fresh chance to make the case. In April, a judge at the High Court in England ruled in Wright’s favor and stopped pursuing the contempt of court proceedings against him, even though there was evidence that he had revealed a judgment before it was announced. Wright was granted permission to appeal to a Norwegian court that ruled in favor of Magnus Granath, also known as Hodlonaut, who posted tweets in 2019 calling Wright a “fraud” and a “scammer” for his claim to be Satoshi.
In summary, the case between Wright and Kleiman over the ownership of disputed cryptocurrency appears to be getting murkier by the day. We do not see an end to this case anytime soon, and as such, we will continue to monitor the situation closely.
Craig Wright Shows ‘Prima Facie Evidence’ of Contemptuous Conduct, U.S. Judge Says
In a recent development in the Bitcoin ownership dispute, a U.S. judge accused computer scientist Craig Wright of “contemptuous conduct” for failing to provide correct information related to $143 million in cryptocurrency.
The case is between Wright, who claims to be the founder of Bitcoin, and Ira Kleiman who claimed rights to crypto mined by his late brother in 2022. The judge found in favor of Kleiman and linked company W&K. However, W&K says Wright never fully provided the personal information required to enforce the payment. As a result, the court was asked to impose fines of $250,000 per day and conduct contempt of court proceedings.
The situation boils down to Wright’s refusal to provide basic data about his spouse and her assets in the unsealed form.
The designation of the form as attorney’s eyes only was “improper from the beginning”. The records were unsealed, and the form stated that Satoshi Nakomoto was Wright’s nickname or alias and that his assets had been transferred or assigned to other parties. Wright’s claim that the form should be kept confidential to avoid personal data exposure was factually false. Reinhart, the U.S. Magistrate Judge, called the evidence against Wright prima facie, meaning it showed evidence of contemptuous behavior.
Wright has until May 18th to explain why investigators should not proceed with sanctions against him. Wright has argued that the information he gave in the form was accurate, but some data requested is either restricted by the law or physically not possible to provide. Reinhart gave Wright and his team a fresh chance to make the case.
In summary, the case between Wright and Kleiman over the ownership of disputed cryptocurrency appears to be getting murkier by the day. We do not see an end to this case anytime soon and will continue monitoring the situation closely.
—–
The material in this article is written on the basis of another article.