Craig Wright lost his case against the estate of Dave Kleiman in a ruling handed down Tuesday and was ordered to hand over ₿500,000 to Kleiman’s estate as a result. Within the ruling however lie some quite incredible comments by Judge Reinhart about Wright’s behavior and approach to his case, the pick of which we have chosen to feature here.
On the Tulip Trust:
I completely reject Dr. Wright’s testimony about the alleged Tulip Trust, the alleged encrypted file, and his alleged inability to identify his bitcoin holdings. Dr. Wright’s story not only was not supported by other evidence in the record, it defies common sense and real-life experience.
Dr. Wright’s false testimony about the Tulip Trust was part of a sustained and concerted effort to impede discovery into his bitcoin holdings.
On Wright’s behavior and demeanor during the case:
During his testimony, Dr. Wright’s demeanor did not impress me as someone who was telling the truth. When it was favorable to him, Dr. Wright appeared to have an excellent memory and a scrupulous attention to detail. Otherwise, Dr. Wright was belligerent and evasive. He did not directly and clearly respond to questions. He quibbled about irrelevant technicalities. When confronted with evidence indicating that certain documents had been fabricated or altered, he became extremely defensive, tried to sidestep questioning, and ultimately made vague comments about his systems being hacked and others having access to his computers. None of these excuses were corroborated by other evidence.
On Wright’s changing testimony:
As Judge Bloom recently noted in denying Dr. Wright’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Dr. Wright has taken directly conflicting factual positions at different times during this litigation.
On Wright’s motives:
…Dr. Wright had many reasons not to tell the truth. Most notably, Dr. Wright might want to prevent the Plaintiffs (or others) from finding his Bitcoin trove.
On Wright’s document forging:
There was substantial credible evidence that documents produced by Dr. Wright to support his position in this litigation are fraudulent. There was credible and compelling evidence that documents had been altered. Other documents are contradicted by Dr. Wright’s testimony or declaration. While it is true that there was no direct evidence that Dr. Wright was responsible for alterations or falsification of documents, there is no evidence before the Court that anyone else had a motive to falsify them. As such, there is a strong, and unrebutted, circumstantial inference that Dr. Wright willfully created the fraudulent documents.
On the value of Wright’s evidence:
In sum, after days of testimony, multiple discovery hearings, and lengthy pleadings, the sole evidence supporting Dr.Wright’s claim that he cannot comply with the Court’s Orders is the uncorroborated word of Dr. Wright. That word is insufficient to meet his evidentiary burden.
On Wright’s actions:
…the evidence establishes that he (Wright) has engaged in a willful and bad faith pattern of obstructive behavior, including submitting incomplete or deceptive pleadings, filing a false declaration, knowingly producing a fraudulent trust document, and giving perjurious testimony at the evidentiary hearing.
On Wright’s approach to justice:
I have found that Dr. Wright intentionally submitted fraudulent documents to the Court, obstructed a judicial proceeding, and gave perjurious testimony. No conduct is more antithetical to the administration of justice.
Can a Leopard Change its Spots?
Whether Wright takes on board anything of what Judge Reinhart said for his upcoming cases is debatable, given the tunnel vision he seemed to suffer in the lead up to the trial and throughout it. All of which will hopefully make his next trial all the more entertaining.
