Computer scientist behind false Bitcoin founder claim sentenced for contempt

Computer scientist Dr Craig Wright, who falsely claimed to be the founder of Bitcoin, has been sentenced to 12 months in prison, suspended for two years, for contempt of court after breaching a High Court order.

Dr Wright lost a legal battle against Crypto Open Patent Alliance (Copa), a non-profit group including cryptocurrency firms, earlier this year over claims that he was Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonym attributed to the person widely credited with establishing the cryptocurrency.

In March, a judge found that he had “lied extensively” to support the false claim and barred him from launching or threatening further legal action related to Bitcoin through a court order.

On Wednesday, lawyers for Copa told a hearing that Dr Wright issued a claim worth more than £900 billion related to Bitcoin in October which constituted contempt of court, and that he should be jailed as a result.

In a judgment on Thursday, Mr Justice Mellor said Dr Wright had committed “a clear breach of the order” and was therefore in contempt of court “beyond any reasonable doubt”.

He said the breach of the order was “flagrant” and that Dr Wright “has expressed no remorse whatsoever”.

Dr Wright attended court on Thursday via a video link, having not attended a hearing on Wednesday.

He told the court he was in Asia but refused to specify which country after being asked by the judge.

He said “I still don’t believe that the areas that you have addressed are correct”, and that he “will be appealing” against the contempt finding, stating: “Copa are an organisation with one purpose – to sue me.”

The court heard on Wednesday that Dr Wright’s latest claim, over intellectual property rights related to Bitcoin, represented “multiple, clear breaches of the order” which were “impossible to remedy” and for which he “has shown no remorse”.

Jonathan Hough KC, for Copa, said on Wednesday: “Bitcoin developers have once more had to suffer the distress and inconvenience of knowing or at least suspecting that Dr Wright is attempting to sue them for huge sums of money and intending to use the proceedings to blacken their names.

“The order was made after careful judicial consideration to prevent this happening, and Dr Wright’s conduct has so far denied developers the benefit of its protection.”

On Thursday, he described Dr Wright’s conduct as a “desperate publicity stunt to keep his cultish supporters engaged” and said: “It is difficult to imagine a more serious and stark breach of an anti-suit injunction”.

Mr Hough told the court that Dr Wright should be jailed for two years – the highest sentence the court can pass for contempt – which would include an 18-month “unconditional” sentence, and a further six months to be added on if Dr Wright “does not promptly discontinue the new claim”.

Mr Justice Mellor said Dr Wright’s arguments comprised of “legal nonsense” but acknowledged that he was not in the UK and “appears to be well aware of countries with which the UK does not have extradition arrangements”.

While the judge said that he would give a “more detailed set of reasons” for the sentence later, he also threw out Dr Wright’s latest legal claim and ordered the Australian to pay around £145,000 of Copa’s legal cost.

Copa previously sued Dr Wright over his claims that he was Satoshi, which a trial in London earlier this year heard was a “brazen lie” supported by “forgery on an industrial scale”.

The original Bitcoin founding document, a white paper named Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, was released in 2008 and was authored under Satoshi’s name.

Lawyers for the computer scientist told the trial there was “clear evidence” demonstrating his creation of the digital currency but Mr Justice Mellor ruled in March that the evidence was “overwhelming” that his claim was false.

In July, the same judge ruled that “relevant” papers from the case would be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider whether criminal charges should be brought, stating that Dr Wright’s claims were a “most serious abuse” of the court’s process.