The ongoing court case between self-proclaimed Bitcoin inventor Craig Wright and the estate of Dave Kleiman took another unexpected turn when Wright failed to oblige court orders to pay the defendants half of his claimed Bitcoin holding of 1.1 million bitcoin supposedly held by the inventor of the king cryptocurrency.
The court ordered Wright to pay half of the mined bitcoin prior to December 2013 which he failed to oblige as he claimed that he has given his private keys to a third-party security firm to manage his vast digital asset. He also asserted that he had no idea whether the trust he tasked to safeguard his digital assets would ever return the keys to him, while at the same indicated that the Private Keys might come to him by the end of January.
The US District Court of Florida gave an ultimatum until February 3rd to Craig Wright to recover his private keys from the so-called third party trust. The district court judge Beth Bloom also ruled that Wright was liable for $658,000 court fees incurred by the Kleiman family in the ongoing court proceedings.
Craig Wright’s Satoshi Fascination Is Costing Him Dearly
Craig Wright is an Australian security expert who managed to venture into the decentralized space in the early phase and since then his fascination towards the pusdo-anonymous creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto has been the cause of his downfall. Most of his claims right from the start has been debunked, but Wright’s persistence even after so many embarrassing exposures continues to be the reason behind his downfall.
The Craig Wright vs Dave Kleiman Court proceedings have continued for over a year and the court has found Wright misleading the proceedings on a number of occasions. His claims of being the Bitcoin creator is now going to cost him almost $9 billion which is the amount he has been asked to pay back to the Kleiman family.
Judge Bloom noted the inconsistency in Wright’s statements throughout the case proceedings and ruled,
“Given the Defendant’s many inconsistencies and misstatements, the Court questions whether it is remotely plausible that the mysterious ‘bonded courier’ is going to arrive, let alone that he will arrive in January 2020 as the Defendant now contends. However, given that the Defendant maintains that he should at least be afforded this opportunity, the Court will indulge him this much.”
Along with the ultimatum, the court also issued a warning to Wright saying,
“In the event the bonded courier does not arrive, and the Plaintiffs are not given access to this information, which the Court has already founded (sic) directly relevant to their claims, the Court finds additional sanctions would be warranted.”