One of the most controversial figures in the cryptocurrency space is Craig Wright, an Australian scientist who has been in the news several times for a number of reasons which include his feud with several within the industry, his claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of bitcoin and also his ongoing case with where he is being accused of stealing $5 billion worth of bitcoin from a late scientist.

This case has seen many twists and turns including falsified documents being presented, the summoning of Wright’s wife onto the stand and now, according to a document released August 13, 2019, Jonathan Warren, who is the developer of Bitmessage, a peer-to-peer messenger, testified that some of the documents belonging to Wright were faked.


In this case against, Wright is accused of stealing billions of dollars worth of bitcoin from David Kleinman, a late scientist. and his estate is now suing Wright.

In the most recent development, Jonathan Warren confirmed to a US Southern District of Florida Court that he had a role in the development of Bitmessage and also stated that Wright and Kleinman had access to the messaging software before it officially went live. This, however, means are there some inconsistencies in the timelines of the previous documents that were provided by Wright to the court and this is not the first time that Wright is being accused of presenting false documents as he previously provided documents that were supposed to have been dated in 2013 but analysis showed that it was written in a font that was not released until 2015.

The documents, in this case, are fake contracts, email correspondence, and Bitmessages which reportedly set to move Kleiman’s assets under Wright’s control. Warren has stated that any printouts of correspondence before November 19, 2012, were most likely fake because Bitmessage had not yet taken root.

“It tells me that something has been faked. Either the date has been faked or the screenshot has been faked. […] Because Bitmessage wasn’t released at that time back in October of 2012,” he said. 

This is one of Wright’s most recent troubles with both the law and others in the crypto industry and this case, in particular, is an exciting one because it created an avenue through which Wright could confirm his consistent claims of being Satoshi Nakamoto but so far, none of the evidence has been in his favor.

What's your reaction?
Leave a Comment