- The UK High Court has issued a General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) against Satoshi Nakamoto pretender Craig Wright, banning him from bringing new claims without permission for three years
- Justice Mellor found that Wright had pursued a campaign of “totally without merit” lawsuits based on fabricated evidence to support his claim of being Bitcoin’s inventor
- The case has been referred to the Attorney General for potential further restrictions
The UK High Court has issued a scathing ruling against Satoshi Nakamoto pretender Craig Wright, branding his multi-year legal campaign to prove himself as Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto as vexatious and abusive. Justice Mellor imposed a General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) on Wright, the harshest a High Court judge can give, for three years, effectively barring Wright from initiating any new civil proceedings without court approval. Justice Mellor’s judgment, handed down on 12 May 2025, also referred Wright to the Attorney General for further action.
Pattern of Abusive Litigation
Craig Wright’s Satoshi cosplay began in 2014 and ended last year when Wright suffered a humiliating defeat to the Cryptocurrency Open Patent Alliance (COPA), after which he fled to Asia, avoiding a prison sentence for contempt of court in the process. This was one of 12 Satoshi-based lawsuits Wright was involved in between 2019 and 2024, all of which Justice Mellor ruled were “totally without merit”, with his multifarious lies founded on what the court earlier described as his “biggest lie”—that he invented Bitcoin:
He has issued many sets of proceedings across many jurisdictions, based on extraordinarily complex lies and forgeries, seeking to weaponise legal systems against the many he perceives as his opponents.
Among the claims cited were defamation suits against critics like Peter McCormack and Magnus Granath, copyright claims over the Bitcoin white paper, and attempts to sue software developers as part of a fabricated “BTC Core” partnership. Justice Mellor found Wright’s litigation tactics were deliberately used to intimidate, mislead, and suppress dissent, and that “If COPA had not intervened, the defamation proceedings… would have caused even more distress and costs to those he was targeting.”
No Remorse, No Let-Up
Despite losing against COPA last year, the Australian IT security consultant has shown no signs of relenting. Instead, the court found he continued issuing new claims, threatening litigation on social media, and using AI-generated documents riddled with falsehoods. Justice Mellor noted that “All the evidence suggests that he is unlikely to desist… as to do so would mean humiliation or irrelevance,” which, it seems, is something Wright cannot countenance.
Of the three types of restraint order a High Court judge can impose, Justice Mellor agreed with COPA and SquareUp (another defendant) that only the highest level of restraint—GCRO—was sufficient, noting that it was “warranted and appropriate.” The court also referred Wright’s conduct to the Attorney General for consideration of a broader civil proceedings order, which could impose even more stringent limits on his ability to sue.
As well as serving a suspended sentence over contempt of court regarding these post-COPA cases, Wright is waiting to see if the Crown Prosecution Service will hit him with perjury charges following the catalogue of lying and forgery on show during the COPA trial.
