Australian computer scientist Craig Wright arrives at the High Court in London on February 5, 2024. … [+]
Craig Wright, an Australian “computer scientist” who claimed to be the inventor of Bitcoin, was sentenced to one year in prison and two years probation for contempt of court. The contempt ruling followed Wright filing a £911 billion lawsuit against Bitcoin Core developers and Square Up Europe Limited, in direct violation of a March 2024 court order.
The Crypto Open Patent Alliance, represented by Jonathan Hough KC of Bird & Bird LLP, initiated contempt proceedings against Wright. Backed by industry leaders such as Coinbase, Kraken and MicroStrategy, COPA aims to protect open source technologies and prevent restrictive patent practices.
The case stems from allegations that Wright violated a court order barring him from pursuing legal claims based on his claimed identity as Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin. This injunction was issued following a March 2024 UK Supreme Court ruling in which Judge Mellor found “overwhelming evidence” that Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. The court concluded that Wright had extensively lied and falsified documents to support his claims, preventing him from pursuing further legal claims related to his alleged identity as Satoshi Nakamoto.
In the ruling, Judge Mellor criticized Wright’s conduct, saying he had lied “profusely and repeatedly” and falsified documents “on a large scale”. The judge emphasized that Wright’s actions constituted an abuse of the court system designed to deceive and manipulate court proceedings to his advantage.
Less than six months after the injunction, Wright filed his latest lawsuit against 26 defendants, a number that has now grown to more than 100 companies worldwide. COPA’s legal team, Bird & Bird, described Wright’s behavior as part of an ongoing campaign of harassment and a “distortion of reality.” Judge Mellor confirmed, citing questionable excuses, that the hearing would take place in Wright’s absence after he failed to appear.
“Dr. “Wright is absent despite timely notice of the hearing,” Hough said at the start of the proceedings. “In any other case this would be extraordinary, but in this case it is to be expected.”
Wright chose to represent himself, claiming that excessive travel costs prevented his participation. COPA had offered to cover his expenses, including flights, but he declined. He stated that going to court would result in a loss of business income of £240,000. He also wrote in an email that even if he paid this amount he would not attend the hearing. Hough highlighted Wright’s well-documented wealth history and called his claims implausible.
Wright appeared via video link to hear the sentencing, but when Judge Mellor asked him to state the country in which he was staying, he refused to reveal this. Mellor asked: “So you’re not even prepared to say which country?” Wright replied: “I’m in Asia.” Mellor replied sharply: “That’s not a country.”
The judge also rejected Wright’s arguments about his autism spectrum disorder and concerns about his personal safety, noting that he had attended several court proceedings in the past without addressing similar issues.
In his conclusion, Judge Mellor stated: “I have found, with the necessary criminal evidence, that Dr. Wright committed each of the violations alleged by COPA in Reasons 1 through 5.” In fact, in my opinion, there is no doubt at all that each of those violations has been proven.”
Hough argued that Wright’s actions were deliberate and vexatious, accusing him of retrieving settled matters and weaponizing the court system to silence critics. He described Wright’s efforts as a “desperate publicity stunt” to keep his “sectarian followers” in line. Judge Mellor highlighted Wright’s lack of remorse and the deliberate nature of his actions.
The court concluded that Wright’s contempt was so serious that only a prison sentence would be sufficient. Wright was also ordered to pay £144,000 in legal costs within 14 days.
Given Wright’s extensive history of litigation and controversy, it is unlikely that this ruling will mark the end of his legal battles. However, it can serve as a step to limit the damage it can cause in the future.
