U.Today – In a recent twist in the case involving self-proclaimed Satoshi Craig Wright, Judge James Mellor issued a new ruling on Tuesday.
Under a ruling passed on July 16, Dr. Wright was prohibited from republishing his fraudulent claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto and must remove all published statements asserting that claim. In addition, a disclosure order required Wright to publish Judge Mellor’s findings and disassociate himself from Satoshi’s identity.
Wright was required to post a notice on his website, Twitter and Slack for six months, stating the main ruling that Wright was not Satoshi. He was also referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for possible prosecution for perjury and forgery.
Wright attempted in the London court to prove that he was the original creator and therefore the owner of the intellectual property rights, including the copyright on the Bitcoin white paper and early versions of the Bitcoin software.
Legal notice on Craig Wright's official website
On Tuesday, a disclaimer was posted on Wright's official website with the title: “Dr. Craig Steven Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.” This disclaimer created a stir in the cryptocurrency community and was shared by several Bitcoin-focused X users and other cryptocurrency enthusiasts.
The legal notice reads: On 20 May 2024, the High Court of England and Wales found that Dr Craig Steven Wright had been dishonest in his claims to have been the person behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto (the creator of Bitcoin).
The court found that Dr. Wright “lied to the Court extensively and repeatedly” in his testimony and attempted to create a false narrative by falsifying documents “on a massive scale” and submitting them as evidence.
Overall, “all of his lies and forged documents supported his biggest lie: his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.” By promoting his false claim to be Satoshi through multiple legal actions, Dr. Wright committed “a very serious abuse” of the process of the courts in the United Kingdom, Norway and the United States.
The legal notice also contained statements from the High Court that ruled that Wright is not Satoshi and that he did not own the copyright to the Bitcoin White Paper or the Bitcoin software.
Wright was also ordered not to initiate any legal proceedings based on his false claims (by complaint or counterclaim) or induce any other person to do so. He was also ordered not to threaten any such proceedings (explicitly or implicitly) or induce any other person to do so.
This article was originally published on U.Today
