Craig Wright Shows ‘Prima Facie Evidence’ of Contemptuous Conduct in Ira Kleiman case, U.S. Judge Says

Share this article:

Craig Wright, who has claimed to be the founder of Bitcoin, has shown “prima facie evidence” of contemptuous conduct in court proceedings for failing to correctly provide information linked to $143 million in disputed cryptocurrency, a U.S. judge said in a ruling published Friday.

Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart issued the ruling as a case grinds on between Wright, who claims to be Satoshi Nakomoto, the pseudonymous author of the 2008 Bitcoin white paper, and Ira Kleiman, who claimed rights to crypto he said was mined by his late brother David.

In 2022, a judge found in favor of Kleiman and linked company W&K. But W&K says Wright never fully provided the personal information needed to enforce the payment, and has asked the court to conduct contempt of court proceedings, and impose fines of $250,000 per day.

“On the present record, there is prima facie evidence of contemptuous conduct,” Reinhart said in response to that request, saying Wright had “refused to provide basic information about his spouse and her assets” on the form.

Wright’s claim that the form should be kept for attorney’s eyes only to avoid revealing sensitive personal data “is factually false…the designation was improper from the beginning,” Reinhart said.

The form, now unsealed by Reinhart, gives Satoshi Nakomoto as Wright’s nickname or alias, and states that his assets have been transferred or assigned to others.

Wright and his attorneys have until May 18 to show why they should not face a sanction for seeking to keep information confidential, under legal provisions designed to stop unreasonable or vexatious inflation of court costs. A further hearing on July 6 in Palm Beach, Florida, will consider the facts linked to the alleged non-compliance.

Wright – who has argued the information he provided on the form was accurate, but that he is unable or legally restricted from providing some of the data requested – will be given a further opportunity to make that case, Reinhart said.

In April, a judge at the High Court in England ruled it wasn’t in the public interest to continue to pursue contempt of court proceedings against Wright even if there was, at first sight, evidence that he had revealed details of a judgment before it was supposed to be published.

Credit: Source link

Share this article:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *