The legal saga between the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) and Craig Wright resumed on Friday, focusing on the penalties and costs Wright might incur after being found posing as Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto.
COPA’s Demand for Legal Costs
COPA’s legal representatives requested that Judge James Mellor order Wright to pay 85% of the costs incurred by COPA during the legal proceedings. The trial, which took place in a U.K. court in February, aimed to determine if Wright was indeed Nakamoto. The court ruled in COPA’s favor in March, concluding that Wright did not create Bitcoin nor author the Bitcoin whitepaper.
Jonathan Hough, representing COPA, argued for a civil restraint order to prevent Wright from pursuing further legal cases, citing his history of threats and legal actions against members of the crypto community. Hough also proposed submitting a list of online posts for Wright to remove, stating that Wright’s continued false claims were harmful to the public interest.
Call for Criminal Proceedings
Hough suggested that the case should also proceed to criminal court, given the court’s judgment that Wright committed multiple forgeries during the trial. Bitcoin developers involved in the case also requested that Wright cover 85.2% of their legal costs. Hough emphasized the need to end Wright’s propagation of falsehoods, which had led to prolonged litigation against COPA members, including Coinbase Inc. (COIN) and Kraken.
Wright’s Defense
Wright’s defense, led by lawyer Craig Orr, contended that restricting Wright’s ability to claim he is Nakamoto could violate his human rights. Orr argued that even minor assertions of being Nakamoto, such as in an email to a medical professional, could be problematic under such restrictions. He described the demand for Wright to remove all his posts as “parasitic” and requested that Wright’s payment be reduced to 70% of COPA’s costs.
Also Read: Bitcoin Transaction Fees Surge Amid Network Congestion
Courtroom Dynamics and Delayed Judgment
The courtroom was filled with legal professionals eager to witness the trial’s conclusion. They listened as Hough played back a 2019 Oxford Union video in which Wright admitted to altering documents, emphasizing the seriousness of perjury in legal proceedings.
Judge Mellor, who showed varying degrees of concern throughout the trial, ultimately decided he could not deliver a judgment immediately. He indicated that he would first decide on the costs before addressing the type of injunctive relief the court might seek to prevent further false claims by Wright. The court did not provide an exact timeline for the final judgment.
