- Telecommunications Giant Vodafone Leaves the Libra Association
- Group of Central Banks Assesses Developing Central Bank Digital Currencies
- South Korea Might Impose 20 Percent Tax on Cryptocurrency Profits
- Report: Terrorists Increasingly Use Crypto to Raise Funds Anonymously
- Canadian Securities Administrators Subject Crypto Exchanges to Securities Laws
Self-proclaimed Bitcoin inventor, Craig Wright, just hit the rock with his recent case with David Kleiman’s estate. The ongoing drama between Wright and his late business partner, David Kleiman, seems to have taken another turn after the presiding judge found Wright’s testimonies wanting.
The case, which was filed about a year ago, is based on an allegation that the yet-to-be-confirmed Bitcoin inventor stole Bitcoin(BTC)trade worth over a million of dollars that he allegedly owes to his late partner.
Amidst fighting for his claim to the Bitcoin throne, Wright was caught in a web where he has to prove his innocence over the alleged Bitcoin theft. Wright, who claimed to be undeterred by the “allegations,” vowed to prove his innocence and the case has lingered since then.
Well, the case seems to have taken a new twist as the court found Wright untrustworthy. According to Florida District Court, the self-proclaimed Bitcoin inventor has repeatedly tried to sway the court’s judgment with falsified proofs.
First, Wright was caught forging documents and emails that supposedly says the late partner handed everything to him. Thanks to a font update, the court found that the fonts used were launched after the death of Kleiman. There is no way Kleiman would have written that document.
With that hitting a quick end, Wright reportedly switched to dismissing the case on the premise of jurisdiction. All along, his fight has been with the court, instead of proving his innocence.
Again, his fight for case dismissal hit an abrupt end when his stories didn’t check out. First, he claimed he had no relationship with the said firm – W&K Info Defense Research LLC – where he reportedly partnered with his late partner. Wright categorically stated that he doesn’t have any relationship with the firm, neither does he know the owner of the firm.
In another event, he claimed to hold a 50% share in the company. And now he claims the director of the firm is a Vietnamese by the name Uyne Nguyen, and therefore, Florida District Court lacks jurisdiction in the case. The court has also found the said relationship of Nguyen to be false.
Conflicting Ownership and Bitcoin Lies
With all of these lies flying around the court, can the court trust Wright’s testimony? Absolutely not.
Florida District Judge Beth Bloom stated:
“He seems to argue that even though his numerous conflicting statements are the very reason confusion has been created as to the ownership of W&K, the Court should nonetheless use these statements as a basis to challenge the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. In essence, the Defendant uses the evidence proffered as both his sword and his shield.”
The judge logically argues that Wright can’t just choose different “truths” each time he faces a different claim against him. This might be a good strategy if he were running for a political position, but in the court of law, facts and truth matter.
The judge added:
“Unfortunately, the record is replete with instances in which the Defendant has proffered conflicting sworn testimony before this Court In weighing the evidence, the Court simply does not find the Defendant’s testimony to be credible.”