Satoshi “Fabulist” Submits Appeal in Identity Case

By Mark Hunter

1 week agoTue Aug 06 2024 09:15:33

Reading Time: 3 minutes

• Craig Wright filed for permission to appeal his defeat against COPA
• Wright failed to prove his Satoshi candidacy, with the UK High Court ruling he “lied extensively” and dismissing his claims
• The grounds of the appeal remain unknown

Craig Wright has told his followers he has filed for permission to appeal his defeat to the Cryptocurrency Open Patent Alliance (COPA) in March. Wright had been tasked with proving his Satoshi candidacy against COPA in the UK High Court but failed miserably, with the judge in the case ruling that Wright “lied to the Court extensively and repeatedly” and dismissed all his claims as “fantasy”. Wright has taken the full 21 days to appeal, although the grounds of his appeal are not yet known.

Wright Facing Criminal Prosecution

Wright made headlines in March when he lost his case against COPA , which was followed two months later by a 580-page two-part ruling which eviscerated his story, his evidence, and his conduct and left him facing potential criminal sanctions for “wholescale [sic] perjury and forgery of documents.”

In July, Wright received notice of the sanctions from the case, where he was prohibited from litigating anywhere in the world on the basis that he created Bitcoin, although he is still allowed to call himself Satoshi Nakamoto. He was also told that his case has been passed to the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service which will decide whether to prosecute him in the criminal courts for his mass perjury.

Wright was given 21 days after the July ruling to appeal and he took all 21, filing yesterday. He had already indicated that he would, however, telling his followers in his paid-for community that the appeal would show that he did not make “false or misleading statements” to the court. Wright also imbued his appeal with a righteous virtue that it doesn’t deserve:

The right to appeal is a critical component of ensuring justice and fairness in the judicial process. It allows for the review of decisions to ensure that they are correct and just.

Moreover, the development of case law through the appeals process is essential for the evolution and refinement of legal principles. By appealing. I am not only seeking to address what I believe to be errors in my specific case but also contributing to the broader legal discourse and the ongoing development of the law.

Wright added that his appeal is “based on a genuine belief in my innocence regarding the allegations of making false or misleading statements” and that “the appeals process will provide a fair and thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented.” This suggests that Wright doesn’t believe he got a fair crack of the whip the first time round, which is interesting seeing as the evidence that saw him lose the case was identified as fraudulent by his own forensic examiners as well as COPA’s.

Hard to See Appeal Avenue

In order to have his appeal heard in the first place, Wright has to receive permission from the UK High Court to do so. This is where his appeal has been filed, and a three-judge panel will assess his claim and see if an error of law has been made. Most appeals are filed on the grounds that the trial judge misinterpreted a point of law, particularly where an untested element of caselaw is open to interpretation, but it is almost impossible to see any avenue down which Wright can take an appeal—the trial judge, Justice Mellor, found that Wright had forged or manipulated almost 500 documents for the case and repeatedly perjured himself on the stand, and while Wright may try to argue against these interpretations of the evidence, he will have a hard job.

If Wright wins then his case will be sent for a full appeal hearing, where the verdict may be overturned, although it is hard to see this happening unless some stunning revelations about the evidence or COPA’s conduct comes to light. If Wright loses he can still appeal to the Supreme Court, and knowing Wright he may well do this, although by that point it would be a case of throwing good money after bad.