Dr Wright – Satoshi Yah-kamoto or Na-kamoto?

Dr Wright's UK crypto lawyers have come off record following a defamation claim Dr Wright brought against a UK podcaster, who publicly disputed that Dr Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto - the inventor of Bitcoin (he didn’t just dispute it, but called Dr Wright a outright fraud). The defamation claim succeeded, but Dr Wright was only awarded £1 because the Judge found that Dr Wright had provided deliberately false evidence about the harm caused. (For the non-lawyers, it’s all very well that a malfeasance has occurred but you need to demonstrate that harm flows from the act).

It should also be noted that Dr Wright has permission to appeal the award at trial, which he will undoubtedly pursue. This case follows on from the defamation claim Dr Wright brought in Norway, in which a popular Norwegian blogger also publicly disputed and ridiculed Wright’s assertion that he was Satoshi. Wright lost the Norwegian case against Hodlonaut, but predictably, he is appealing that decision.

Back to the UK case - The Judge also considered that an embargo on the Judgment had been breached and decided whether Dr Wright was in contempt. Wright’s lawyers, Ontier, on the basis that they had an obligation to notify the Court of social media posts Dr Wright had made, which they deemed were in breach of the embargo, reported the social media posts to the Court. Ontier subsequently came off record due to the conflict. I should reiterate, that this is not case of a law firm out to get it's own client. Arguably, they had no alternative but to report the matter to the Court once they had become aware of the potential embargo breach, whether it was knowingly made or not. Within their report to the Court they stated –

'Dr Wright does not believe that his posts on the Slack Channel breached the embargo and it was certainly not his intention to do so. However, to the extent that Dr Wright’s posts are or may be considered by the court to be a breach of the embargo, Dr Wright unreservedly apologises to the court and wishes to emphasise that any such breach was entirely unintentional and inadvertent.'

As it happens, the Judge, Lord Justice Warby, determined that contempt proceedings would not be in the public interest. These proceedings were a warning shot. Ultimately, whilst Wright argued that the Ontier report should be inadmissible, the Court found that the report was admissible, however they deemed that prosecuting the matter was not in the public interest, as it would go against the principle of dealing with cases justly and at proportionately cost (the overriding objective). Dr Wright's Skeleton Argument for the hearing reached 1,600 pages.

This is a classic balancing exercise lawyers have to contend with, between their overarching duty to the Court, and their duty to their client. This is something embedded in lawyers from law school, and is probably more frequently put to the test in criminal law. A lawyer's duty to the Court will override their duty to their client. Officers of the court first and foremost.

So, is Dr Wright Satoshi Nakamoto?

Whilst we still don’t really know the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, it is incorrect to say that Dr Wright is the ‘self-proclaimed’ inventor, as many online reports state. The magazine publication, Wired, first did an exposé based on information provided to it by a hacker, following which they canvassed the notion that Dr Wright was Bitcoin’s inventor. It was only following a lawsuit from his deceased friend’s family that Dr Wright admitted that he was Satoshi, under sworn testimony.

For those interested in Dr Wright’s ongoing litigation, last month the High Court (in England and Wales) ruled that Dr Wright’s claim over ownership of the Bitcoin database and the White Paper has sufficient cause, so that Defendants in that action , residing outside the UK, may be served proceedings outside the jurisdiction. This doesn’t mean the claim will succeed, but that there are legitimate grounds for bringing the claim, and that there is a serious issue to be tried.

Tip of the day if faced with contempt proceedings: Submit a lengthy Skeleton Argument, which is suitably complex that costs in the matter become disproportionate! (Please don't).

If you want to read more about the Satoshi saga, ‘The Satoshi Affair’, penned by Andrew O’Hagan, is well worth a read! Click here to read the article.

#Bitcoin #cryptocurrency #crypto #Satoshi #Nakamoto #cryptolaw #Slack #litigation #web3 #blockchain #HighCourt #AppealCourt