Craig Wright Lied and Forged Documents: Judge Rules
A UK judge has ruled that Craig Wright, who claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, lied extensively and forged documents during a high-profile trial.In a scathing 231-page judgment, Justice James Mellor...
Archive context
Older archive item. Useful for background and entity history, but not a fresh market-moving signal.
A UK judge has ruled that Craig Wright, who claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, lied extensively and forged documents during a high-profile trial.
In a scathing 231-page judgment, Justice James Mellor stated that Wright "lied to the court repeatedly" and committed forgery "on a grand scale" in a failed attempt to prove he was Nakamoto.
A group of crypto firms brought the civil trial, the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), that sought to prevent Wright from claiming he invented Bitcoin.
BREAKING: 🇬🇧 Judge has just published his ruling in the COPA vs Craig Wright lawsuit that Craig is not Satoshi Nakamoto.
Massive victory for #Bitcoin 👏 pic.twitter.com/rCSewIhsA9
Mellor wrote that Wright presented fake documents and gave false testimony in support of "his biggest lie - his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto."
The judge determined Wright is neither the author of the Bitcoin white paper nor the person behind the Satoshi pseudonym from 2008-2011.
Furthermore, Mellor ruled Wright does not have copyright ownership that would enable him to sue Bitcoin developers, as he has done in the past.
The judge slammed Wright's narrative as "riddled with inconsistencies and absurd explanations" and said Wright was "not nearly as clever as he thinks he is."
COPA lawyers accused Wright of extensive deception and forgery throughout the trial. They also presented technical evidence exposing fake documents Wright justified with "fluent but ultimately unpersuasive answers."
Following the damning judgment, Wright has already dropped several lawsuits premised on his being Nakamoto. However, Mellor's ruling only prevents him from bringing new claims in the UK, not other jurisdictions.
The case has raised questions about Wright's litigation funding source. Online gambling tycoon Calvin Ayre is rumored to be backing Wright financially, but both men deny this.
Overall, the judge's unequivocal findings represent a major blow to Wright's reputation and credibility. COPA hopes the judgment will discourage further legal action from Wright despite potential appeals.
For the Bitcoin community, it provides a major relief from his past claims and litigation threats.
Why this matters
This bitcoin story adds another data point to the current market tape and is useful when read alongside nearby source coverage.
Original source
Read on Bitcoin MagazineRelated market context
Binance Gave Russian Investigators Data of Ukraine Donor to Build a Terrorism Financing Case, Documents Show
Binance supplied Russian investigators with a client’s identity documents and transaction history in 2025, and prosecutors folded...
Applied Materials bStock dividends now available in Spot Wallet
Binance's tokenized stock dividends enhance global access to US equities, potentially reshaping investment landscapes and democrat...
How a former crypto user’s archived Binance data ended up in a foreign terrorism prosecution
When Russian investigators detained IT specialist Yuri Belenkiy in September 2025, Binance had been formally out of Russia for alm...
The latest $1.61 billion crypto ETF surge risks grinding to a halt against a 30-year US Treasury yield spike
Four consecutive sessions of U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF inflows have revived a regulated demand channel just as the U.S. Treasury offer...
Canaan counted paused Ethiopia mining as nearly 35% of its July operating hashrate total
Canaan's July mining update counted 4.96 exahashes per second from paused operations in Ethiopia inside 14.24 EH/s of global opera...
HIVE’s $84.7 million Swedish tax provision eclipsed revenue even as Bitcoin output hit a record
HIVE Digital Technologies booked an $84.7 million non-cash Swedish tax provision tied to contested VAT exposure after adverse cour...