According to the decision, Wright must pay $100 million in compensation to W&K Info Defense Research for the conversion. In 2019, the self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto tried to prove to the court that Kleiman had no rights to the claimed share in the company. In addition, he spoke about the alleged refusal of the latter from his share.
“I feel remarkably happy and vindicated. I am not a fraud, and I never have been,” CoinDesk quotes Wright as saying. Thus, the jury rejected other claims against him.
Lawyers for Wright and Kleiman presented a list of 36 witnesses in the case
In February 2018, Ira Kleiman, the brother of deceased computer criminologist and mathematician Dave Kleiman, sued Craig Wright. The plaintiff accused the latter of embezzling 1.1 million BTC, allegedly belonging to Kleiman.
In August 2019, the Court of the Southern District of Florida decided to recover 500,000 BTC from Wright. Moreover, the self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto refused to participate in the settlement agreement. The proceedings were resumed.
In May 2020, 145 early Bitcoin addresses signed a message accusing Wright of fraud and perjury. Also, he claimed that these addresses belonged to him. Later in June of the same year, lawyers for Wright and Kleiman presented a list of 36 witnesses in the case.
Identified wallet addresses matching with Mt Gox hack
In September 2020, the court rejected Wright’s motion for summary proceedings. Earlier, he stated that the statute of limitations had expired, and the plaintiff could not prove an oral agreement.
In February 2021, Wright demanded that Bitcoin Core developers give him back access to two Bitcoin wallets. Furthermore, some in the cryptocurrency industry doubt that the 1.1 million BTC of this case exists. Kim Nilsson, a Tokyo-based software developer, self-described “Bitcoin archaeologist”, identified wallet addresses allegedly held by Wright in a blog post from 2018, correlating several of them to the 2014 Mt Gox hack.
Recall that the trial began at the beginning of November 2021. Wright’s defense was based on two aspects: a diagnosed autism spectrum disorder and the absence of a written agreement with Kleiman. According to the defendant’s lawyer, because of autism, her client and Kleiman understood the word “partner” differently.