The UK Court of Appeal has firmly rejected Craig Steven Wright’s (CSW) application to appeal, claiming he is Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin. The denial of Wright’s appeal effectively invalidates his claims, reinforcing the prevailing consensus that he is not the individual behind the pseudonym.
In May this year, the British Supreme Court certain that Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto. This decision was made in a lawsuit filed against Wright by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), a group of companies that alleged Wright committed forgery to produce evidence supporting his claim that he Nakamoto.
It’s over! Craig Wright is not Bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto
The Court of Appeal ruled on November 28, 2024 delivered his judgment, which states unequivocally that “Dr. Wright (…) is not the person who adopted the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, who wrote and published the first version of the Bitcoin White Paper on October 31, 2008. Bitcoin source code and who created the Bitcoin system.” This conclusion was reached after an exhaustive 22-day trial during which the judge examined a wide range of factual and expert evidence.
BitMEX Research, in a report shared via The judge’s decision, which ran to 945 paragraphs with an additional 799 paragraphs in the appendix, underscored that the evidence proving Wright’s non-identity as Satoshi Nakamoto was “overwhelming.”
Among the crucial factors influencing the verdict were the findings that Wright had “repeatedly and extensively lied to the court in his evidence” and “falsified numerous documents” to support his claims. The judge’s thorough analysis included cross-examination of Wright over eight days and the review of fifteen witness statements, collectively dismantling Wright’s claims.
In response to Wright’s claims after the trial, the judge addressed some of his claims point by point. Wright alleged that the judge “misinterpreted” several pieces of evidence and misattributed documents.
However, the court states: “Dr. Wright accuses the judge of bias, but this accusation is unfounded. Dr. Wright makes no credible claim of factual basis or apparent bias, just a series of disagreements with the judge’s reasoning. In fact, the judge went out of his way to ensure that Dr. Wright received a fair trial. The same applies to the allegation of procedural unfairness.”
The court also addressed Wright’s challenges regarding the handling of expert evidence. It was clarified that Wright’s experts “agreed with COPA’s experts on most issues,” undermining his claims about their qualifications and the strategic decisions of his legal team. Furthermore, Wright’s claims regarding the improper authentication of documents were rejected as the court operates under the principle that “a document is presumed to be authentic unless its authenticity is appropriately challenged.”
In relation to Wright’s concerns about reasonable accommodations for his autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the court found these allegations “unfounded”, emphasizing that the agreed accommodations had been implemented effectively and that after cross-examination, Wright had even “responded positively to the experience ‘. .
“The judge made the adjustments agreed between the parties’ ASD experts, and there was no complaint at trial that these were inadequate or ineffective. At the end of the cross-examination, Dr. Wright commented positively on the experience. A number of Dr. Wright’s allegations in this regard are simply false,” the court ruled.
Concluding the ruling, the court stated unequivocally: “The appeals have no prospect of success and there is no other reason for them to be heard,” ending Wright’s legal quest to validate his identity as the creator of Bitcoin.
At the time of writing, Bitcoin was trading at $97,860.
Featured image from The Guardian, chart from TradingView.com