Australian computer scientist Craig Wright arrives at the High Court in London on February 5, 2024. … [+] A court case starting in London will seek to determine whether Wright invented bitcoin, the world’s first and biggest cryptocurrency. Wright says he is Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonym of bitcoin’s creator and author of a white paper that introduced the cryptocurrency to the world in 2008. Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), a non-profit organisation set up to keep cryptocurrency technology free from patents, is suing Wright over his claims first made in 2016 — resulting in the trial at London’s High Court set to last six weeks. (Photo by Daniel LEAL / AFP) (Photo by DANIEL LEAL/AFP via Getty Images)
Craig Wright, an Australian “computer scientist” who claimed to be the creator of bitcoin, has been sentenced to one year in prison, suspended for two years, after being found in contempt of court. The contempt ruling stemmed from Wright filing a £911 billion lawsuit against Bitcoin Core developers and Square Up Europe Limited, which was in direct violation of a March 2024 court injunction.
The Crypto Open Patent Alliance, represented by Jonathan Hough KC of Bird & Bird LLP, initiated the contempt proceedings against Wright. Backed by industry leaders like Coinbase, Kraken, and MicroStrategy, COPA aims to protect open-source technologies and prevent restrictive patent practices.
The case originates from allegations that Wright violated a court injunction prohibiting him from asserting legal claims based on his claimed identity as Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of bitcoin. This injunction was issued following a March 2024 ruling by the UK High Court, where Mr Justice Mellor found “overwhelming evidence” that Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. The court concluded that Wright had lied extensively and forged documents to support his claims, preventing him from pursuing further legal claims tied to his alleged identity as Satoshi Nakamoto.
In the judgment, Judge Mellor criticised Wright’s conduct, stating that he had “extensively and repeatedly” lied and forged documents “on a grand scale.” The judge emphasised that Wright’s actions were a misuse of the court system, intended to deceive and manipulate legal proceedings to his advantage.
Less than six months after the injunction, Wright launched his latest lawsuit targeting 26 defendants, a figure that has since grown to over 100 companies globally. COPA’s legal team, Bird & Bird, described Wright’s behavior as part of a continued campaign of harassment and a “distortion of reality.” Judge Mellor confirmed that the hearing would proceed in Wright’s absence after he failed to appear, citing questionable excuses.
“Dr. Wright is absent despite having good notice of the hearing,” said Hough at the beginning of the proceedings. “In any other case, this would be extraordinary, but, in this case, expected.”
Wright chose to represent himself and claimed that prohibitive travel costs prevented his attendance. COPA had offered to cover his expenses, including flights, but he declined. He stated that attending court would result in £240,000 in lost business revenue. He also wrote in an email that even if this amount were covered, he would still not attend the hearing. Hough highlighted Wright’s well-documented history of wealth and described his claims as implausible.
Wright appeared via video link to hear the sentencing, but when asked by Judge Mellor to specify the country he was in, he refused to disclose it. Mellor asked, “So you’re not even prepared to say which country?” Wright replied, “I’m in Asia.” Mellor sharply responded, “That’s not a country.”
The judge also dismissed Wright’s arguments about his autism spectrum disorder and personal safety concerns, noting that he had participated in multiple legal actions in the past without raising similar issues.
In his conclusion, Judge Mellor stated, “I have found, to the requisite criminal standard of proof, that Dr. Wright committed each of the contempts alleged by COPA in their Grounds 1 to 5 inclusive. Indeed, in my judgment, there is no doubt whatever that each of these contempts has been proved.”
Hough argued that Wright’s actions were premeditated and vexatious, accusing him of relitigating settled matters and weaponizing the court system to silence critics. He described Wright’s efforts as a “desperate publicity stunt” to keep his “cultish supporters engaged.” Judge Mellor highlighted Wright’s lack of remorse and the deliberate nature of his actions.
The court concluded that Wright’s contempt was of such gravity that only a custodial sentence would suffice. Wright was also ordered to pay £144,000 in legal costs within 14 days.
Given Wright’s extensive history of legal disputes and controversies, this judgment is unlikely to mark the end of his court battles. However, it may serve as a step in limiting the harm he can inflict moving forward.
