Blogs & Articles: The Faketoshi Tale of 1Feex đ 2 years ago
- Category: Blogs & Articles | MyLegacyKit on Medium
- Author(s): MyLegacyKit
- Published: 25th December 2021 15:54
Craig Wright has a long, long history with 1Feex⌠Since late 2013.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/829/60/kleiman-v-wright/
Written by Arthur van Pelt
ABOUT EDITS to this article: as more material might become available after publication of this article, it will have edits and updates every now and then. In that sense, this article can be considered a work in progress, to become a reference piece for years to come.
Pictured above is a paper wallet for the 1Feex address. A paper wallet is an offline mechanism for storing Bitcoin, to keep oneâs Bitcoin holdings safe from cyberattacks, malware or other internet theft. The image shows, at first glance, a genuine paper wallet, with Craig Wrightâs driving license, apparently attached to the paper wallet to give it more authenticity and credibility, as they were used in the early days of Bitcoin. But what does the image show at second glance?
Find out in this article, in which we do a rundown in historical order of all the currently known occasions and events where Craig Wright, the most well known Satoshi Nakamoto cosplayer due to the mindboggling number of debunks of his false claims and sloppy forgeries, used the 1Feex address in his Bitcoin scam history that started after the death of Dave Kleiman in April 2013.
Letâs start with the inception of the 1Feex address.
March 1, 2011: Bitcoin public address 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF (from now onward: 1Feex) was created on this day when a so far unknown hacker dropped exactly 79,956 BTC on it, stolen on that same day from the Mt Gox exchange during the transition of the Mt Gox exchange from the old owner Jed McCaleb to the new owner Mark Karpelès.
Since March 1, 2011, the 1Feex address has, almost literally, only been collecting dust, as around 400 small to very small transactionsâââcalled âdustâ in the Bitcoin communityâââhave reached the 1Feex address. These dust transactions amount to a total of 1.21 BTC at the moment of writing, nevertheless.
On the other hand, no transaction has ever left the 1Feex address since its day of creation. In addition, no publicly verifiable signing has ever taken place in relationship to the 1Feex address. It almost appears as if the Mt Gox hacker lost the private key of the 1Feex address over ten years ago, doesnât it?
September 25, 2013: Russian âWebMoney exchangeâ, as they called themselves, WMIRK adds Bitcoin to its digital currency exchange portfolio. Some will probably think, what does this fact have to do with the 1Feex Bitcoin address? Donât worry, Iâll come back to that later.
Source: https://topgoldforum.com/topic/34382-wmirk-wmirkru/#comment-201244
The stage is now set for Craig Wright to enter the scene. Craig, who learned about Bitcoin in July 2011 and who bought his first few handfuls of Bitcoin on the Mt Gox exchange in April 2013, started to randomly pick public Bitcoin rich list addresses in the second half of 2013 to try and advance his Australian tax fraud in that era.
One of the many Bitcoin addresses that Craig Wright randomly picked from the Bitcoin rich list was:Â 1Feex.
October 9, 2013: Here is where we find an early example of Craig Wright using several of those public addresses from the Bitcoin rich list, to subsequently claim he owns, and controls, those randomly picked public addresses. On this day, Craig Wright sends an email to the ATO in the person of Michael Hardy about âconfidential discussions about the main addresses we control as a groupâ.
From now onward, the reader will find the 1Feex address highlighted by a red arrow.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/511/9/kleiman-v-wright/
The false story of âcontrollingâ Bitcoin assets would quickly change though, because Craig Wright, under growing pressure of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) who requested multiple times that Craig should start providing evidence to these outrageous claims, had to hide the fact that he couldnât sign any of these public addresses, and at the same time Craig also had to avoid paying tax on âhisâ Bitcoin assets. So, after many times falsely declaring that he owned trusts all over the globe, which were in play in his Bitcoin business endeavors, in exactly a year from this moment all CraigâsâââimaginaryâââBitcoin holdings will end up in a ârealâ trust. October 2014 is where the infamous Tulip Trust myth really lifts off. More about this in âFaketoshi, The Early YearsâââPart 2â
October 11, 2013: Part of an affidavit filed by Craig Wright on November 4, 2013 at New South Wales Supreme Court, this Statutory Declaration signed by Stephen DâEmilio and Adrian Fong shows another instance where Craig Wright falsely claimed to own, and to have control over, the 1Feex address.
Also note the 16cou address in this list of five public Bitcoin addresses, as I will come back to this address later.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/24/4/kleiman-v-wright/
The illegal conversion that Craig Wright performed in this timeframe (of which this false Statutory Declaration was only one of many fraudulent documents) was penalized in December 2021 with a whopping $100 million by a Jury in Miami in the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit (with another $43 million added for pre-judgement interest); my more detailed report about Craig Wrightâs conversion was published on Bitcoin Magazine and the Nasdaq website.
February 2014: Craig Wright contacts Kleiman estate.
Vel Freedman, head of Ira Kleimanâs counsel in the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit, described this process in every shocking detail in his Closing Arguments on November 23, 2021 during the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit trial. Here is where Ira Kleiman gets involved with Craig Wrightâs Satoshi cosplay and the 1Feex address.
Vel Freedman:
âBut Dave dies unexpectedly in 2013, and Craig sees an opportunity. As weâve discussed, Craig takes the partnershipâs assets for himself, his access to the Bitcoin because they mined it into a trust. But he needs title to the intellectual property, so he can sell it. So he files sham lawsuits against W&K to steal its intellectual property and he forges Daveâs signature on a contract weeks beforeâââthat is dated weeks before Dave dies, which says that Dave gives Craig 570,000, half of the 1.1 million Bitcoinâââto Craig, gives Craig all of W&Kâs shares and all of W&Kâs intellectual property, all in exchange for a minority stake in a company that doesnât even exist yet and a company that amounted to nothing called Coin-Exch. Of course, Dave isnât around to dispute this outrageous contract. So Craig just forges Daveâs signature on it. But Craigâs greedy. He then takes all the IP he stole from W&K and he applies to the Australian Taxation Office for tens of millions of dollars in tax rebates. Which, as you might expect, results in a tax audit. The ATO doesnât want to cut the $10 million check without proof. And so they start digging. It seems that, like the IRS, the evidence shows that the ATO was dogged. They examined everything. And when they start doing that, Craig is forced to start revealing the truth about his partnership with Dave to defend himself from the Australian authorities. To be sure, heâs not entirely truthful with the ATO either. And he forges documents with them too. For example, he lies to them about supercomputers. And he gets himself in trouble in Australia as well. Eventually, the Australian Taxation Office finds that he forged documents and that he lied to them. When his Australian lawyers, that never tell a lie, find out that he submitted forged documents to the Australian Taxation Office, they fire him too. Think about that for a minute. His own lawyers fire him for forging documents. And thatâs why youâve seen documents in this case from the Australian Taxation Office.
[âŚ]
As with many stories, itâs Craigâs greed that results in his downfall. He had almost gotten away with it. But in September 2013, he applies for $10 million tax refunds from the Australian government based on the intellectual property he had stolen. The Australian government quickly audits Craigâs companiesâââMs. Vela, if you could jump ahead with meâââquickly audits Craigâs companies. And then after auditing his companies, in February of 2014, they begin asking questions about W&K. Can you guys jump ahead for me, please. Iâm on Page 40. Craig finally reaches outâââdo we have a technological issue? It was then, right after W&Kâââright after the ATO reaches out about W&K, five days later, all of a sudden Craig Wright reaches out. Make no mistake. This is not a good man doing a good deed. This is a desperate man attempting to protect the fruits of his theft and protect himself from the Australian Taxation Office breathing down his neck. He needed the Kleimans to help him convince the Australian government that his actions against W&K were proper. So he emails Ira Kleiman and he promises them foolâs gold.â
March 2, 2014: On this day, Craig Wright creates an email forgery where Dave Kleiman apparently talks about a lot of Bitcoin addresses. Almost casually, paper wallets are also mentioned, for the 1Feex address and other Bitcoin addresses.
Craig then backdates the email forgery to October 31, 2012, and sends it to John Chesher of the ATO (with his wife Ramona Watts on the CC) on March 10, 2014. This email forgery is then only eight days old.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/268/19/kleiman-v-wright/
Next to 1Feex, we recognize several other remarkable addresses: 12ib7 (Pineapple Hack lawsuit), 12Hdd, 16Ls6, 1P3S1 and 12Hdd (4 addresses belonging to Mt Gox as we saw in Faketoshi, The Early YearsâââPart 1, after moving the holdings of these addresses and splitting them up in chunks of around 2,000 BTC now in cold storage under supervision of the bankruptcy trustee, waiting to be paid to the creditors someday).
How do we know this is a forgery created on March 2, 2014? We know this from a forensic report by Dr Edman, the forensic expert in the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit, acting on behalf of Ira Kleiman.
And itâs again an awkward date stamp in the PGP signature that reveals the sloppiness of another homemade Wright forgery, isnât it Craig?
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/548/3/kleiman-v-wright/
By the way, make no mistake about who is creating all the forgeries that pop up in Craig Wrightâs fraudulent Bitcoin career since the second half of 2013. Although Craig wants you to believe he is continuously being hacked over the years, with ever-changing narratives about who these supposed hackers might be and what theirâââinsert random conspiracy theoryâââmotives are, the hard fact is; Craig Wright is the only person, on each and every forged occasion, with the means, the motives, the incentives, the skills and the opportunity to create all the forgeries.
Hence we find Magistrate Judge Reinhart ruling âDr Wright willfully created the fraudulent documents.â during the discovery phase in the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit.
For those who just canât get enough of how Craigâs forgeries are unraveled by forensic experts like Dr Edman in the Kleiman case, with examples of how Craig is sending emails TO HIMSELF to then alter them in the text and metadata to make it look like someone else, in many cases Dave Kleiman, send the email, should read this Affidavit of Dr Edman.
And another example of how Craig Wright had the means to create Bitmessage emails on Dave Kleimanâs behalf is shown elsewhere in the Kleiman v Wright court docket on the CourtListener website.
Read it, and weep, how serial forger Craig Wright âperhaps unintentionallyâ produced a keys.dat file in the Kleiman case.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/512/kleiman-v-wright/Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/500/2/kleiman-v-wright/
Around March 2014: Craig Wright forges a Deed of Loan for 650,000Â Bitcoin.
From the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit we have learned more about this Deed of Loan containing the 1Feex address, that Ira Kleiman had apparently received from the ATO, as we find the following quote in the Complaint material filed in the case:
âFurther, a 2012 contract provided to Ira by the ATO lists Bitcoin wallets containing over 650,000 bitcoins (the â2012 Deed of Loanâ). Next to the list of wallets and total bitcoin held, there is a handwritten annotation stating: âas agreed, all wallets to be held in UK in trust until all regulatory issues solved and Group Company formed with Dave K and CSW.â (Ex. 15 at 9). This annotation is in Craigâs handwriting.â
Backdated to October 23, 2012 but forged around March 2014, this Deed of Loan contains several inconsistencies by which we can determine that this is undoubtedly another Craig Wright forgery, in which, as said, the 1Feex address is mentioned. Letâs have a closer look at this beauty.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/1/14/kleiman-v-wright/
The Deed of Loan exposes itself as a backdated forgery immediately on the first page. The party mentioned as âmortgagee", Design By Human Ltd (0828988) UK, was an empty shelf company that Craig Wright obtained on January 3, 2014 from company formation agent CFS in the UK. The full story is that CFS had renamed Design By Human Ltd to Moving Forward In Business Ltd on October 15, 2013, and after Craig Wright obtained this company on January 3, 2014, he renamed it to C01N Ltd on January 7, 2014.
In the following months, Craig started to file all kinds of backdated nonsense in the UK to make it appear as if this Design By Human Ltd company had always belonged to him.
Or, belonged to Dave Kleiman?
Because in fact, in front of the ATO Craig Wright made it appear as if Dave Kleiman had obtained the Design By Human company around October 2012, as can be seen in this 2014 forgery, a chat-between-Dave-and-Craig-that-never-happened-in-real-life-because-Dave-had-passed-away-in-Apri-2013.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/550/2/kleiman-v-wright/
For further context, the Deed of Loan forgery was created during, and meant to advance, Craig Wrightâs Australian tax fraud era (2013â2015) where he was requested, under growing scrutiny of the ATO Refund Integrity department, where all the Bitcoin came from that Craig claimed to âownâ, or otherwise have access to, directly or indirectly.
The ATO was, not unsurprisingly, not amused to learn about the next Craig Wright forgery. In one of their Decision reports from Craigâs tax fraud era (learn more in detail about this era in the Faketoshi, The Early Years series written with CryptoDevil), we find the following quotes about this Deed of Loan forgery. For example, we learn that on March 17, 2014 this Deed of Loan was already known to the ATOââânote that the deed was apparently provided to the ATO as a response to their questionsâââ, and thatâs why Iâm dating it around this period:
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/547/3/kleiman-v-wright/
In April 2014, the ATO finds that the Bitcoin addresses mentioned in the Deed of Loan are used for âthe MJF transactionsâ, which is about the Mark Ferrier/MJF Mining Potemkin Village that Craig Wright has raised as part of his Australian tax fraud. Again, more about that in detail in the Faketoshi, The Early Years series. Also, it appears that Craig Wright initially provided an unsigned version of the Deed of Loan which was unacceptable to the ATO.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/547/3/kleiman-v-wright/
A bit further down this ATO report we find some more information about the findings of the ATO around this Deed of Loan.
- An Uyen Nguyen directorship oopsie, quickly ârepairedâ by Craig Wright.
- The âSeychelles trustâ (which is the still to be set up Tulip Trust scam) existence is being questioned, and for good reasons as we know now.
- And didnât we hear the excuse âthe terms of the trust do not allow you access to any information before 2015â before, but with ever changing years?
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/547/3/kleiman-v-wright/
The final nail in the forged Deed of Loan coffin comes more to the end of the ATO report. No Seychelles Trust exists, no 650,000 Bitcoin did ever exist, let alone was ever hold in this non-existing trust. So the Deed of Loan was based on⌠nothing but false information created from thin air and backdated forgeries. Who had thoughtâŚ
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/547/3/kleiman-v-wright/
And to avoid any misunderstanding about how Craig Wrightâs fraudulent tax return scheme worked, of which the 1Feex address was only a small detail, the ATO summarized Craigâs fraudulent set up as follows:
â132. Subsection 165â10(2) of the GST Act defines a âschemeâ broadly to include any arrangement, agreement, course of action or course of conduct. In your case we consider there was a scheme which involved you acquiring software from MJF and W&K in order for it to be on supplied to your related entities so as to generate GST refunds in Coin-Exch, Hotwire and Cloudcroft. You had initially planned to use bitcoin to fund these transactions in such a way that you would never lose control or access to those bitcoins.
133. However, on receipt of the private binding ruling advising you that the supply of bitcoin in consideration for an acquisition would be a taxable supply, you altered the scheme to insert the Seychelles trust to which you transferred the bitcoin.
134. Once possessed of the bitcoin, the trustee then entered into a loan agreement with you enabling you to draw down on the loan in bitcoin. You assigned your right to draw down on the loan to your related entities, who in turn assigned the rights to pay for software and IP, the assignments not being taxable supplies. Consequently, your related entities made creditable acquisitions of software and IP but had negative net amounts because there was no corresponding GST liability arising from their provision of consideration.
135. On this scheme (which is particularised further below), the avoiders are Craig Wright, Coin-Exch, Cloudcroft and DeMorgan.
136. The scheme that generated the GST benefits for the avoiders specified below involved 8Â steps.
a. Step 1: You caused a trust to be established in the Seychelles
b. Step 2: You acquired software from MJF at a purported cost of $38,461,471, in order to generate a GST credit with a corresponding GST liability by MJF which would never be paid
c. Step 3: You initiated a court action to confirm legal title to W&K software at an inflated value, being $58,786,649
d. Step 4: You entered into a Deed of Loan with trustee of the Seychelles trust in order to access 650,000Â bitcoin
e. Step 5: You assigned the right to call for the bitcoin under the Deed of Loan to your related entities Coin-Exch
f. Step 6: You sold the intellectual property and software above to your family trust (DeMorgan) and Cloudcroft at a price reflecting the purported cost bases.
g. Step 7: DeMorgan licensed the software and IP to entities related to you. The licences were paid for by rights to call for bitcoin provided to those entities by you.
h. Step 8: The related entities lodged BAS and claimed input tax for the acquisition of the licenced software, resulting in significant refunds.â
From another ATO report released in the same era (March 2016) we learn that Craig Wright, as said before, has never performed any signing of any message on any of the numerous public Bitcoin addresses that we have seen so far, to prove that he controlled any of them.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/547/7/kleiman-v-wright/ (section 157.)
This, of course, includes the 1Feex address.
Craig Wrightâs explanation of the 650,000 Bitcoin Deed of Loan
Now letâs see what Craig Wright had to say about this Deed of Loan forgery during his deposition in the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit on April 4, 2019. He was not very cooperative to share his knowledge about the 2012 Deed of Loan, to say the least.
âBY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Dr. Wright, do you recognise Plaintiffâs Exhibit 7 which has been just marked and placed before you?
A. I recognise two documents joined together, yes.
Q. What are the two documents that are joined together?
A. You have deed of loan as a front page. Page 1 of 7, 2 of 7, 3 of 7, 4 of 7, 5 of 7, 6 of 7 of a document, and then page 7 of 7 of a separate document. So, potentially two, if not three, documents, put together as one.
Q. Page 7 of 7 belongs to what document?
A. Not this one.
Q. Do you know what document it does belong to?
A. I would need to look at records. I do not know.
Q. Looking at the first six pages, which you say are one document; is that correct?
A. The first six pages, you mean not the first six, but the cover page does not have a thing, and then that starts at page 1. So, page 2, which is on here as page 3 of 10, page 4 of 10, page 5 of 10, page 6 of 10, page 7 of 10, and page 8 of 10 are parts of the same document that is not complete.
Q. Sitting here today you have no idea what page 9 of 10 document isâââstrike that. Sitting here today you have no idea what page 9 of 10âââstrike that again. Sitting here today you have no idea what document page 9 of 10 belongs to; is that correct?
A. That is not what I said.
Q. What document does page 9 of 10 belong to?
A. A different document that is not this one.
Q. Which document?
A. I do not have documents in front of me. I cannot match them.
Q. So, sitting here today you do not know what that documentâââwhat that pageâââwhat document that page belongs to?
A. I cannot match them, no, and page 10 of 10 is a separate document as well. You will notice no page numbers or anything like that, so that is also out ofâââso there are possibly four documents constructed into one.
Q. Who has all the originals of these documents?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I do not know.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Do you have the originals of these documents?
A. Unless my lawyers have gone through and found things in boxes, then I do not know.
Q. Does Ms. Nguyen have the originals of this document?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I do not know what Ms. Nguyen has. I have not spoken to Ms. Nguyen in three plus years.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Can you look at page 9 of 10.
A. Yes.
Q. There is a signature at the bottom; is that your signature?
A. Yes.
Q. And there is a signature above that; is that Ms. Nguyenâs signature?
A. I believe so.
Q. The handwriting on the right-hand side of all the Bitcoin wallets listed there, whose handwriting is that?
A. That looks like mine.
Q. Do you recognise what this appendix list of Bitcoin is?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. Answer if you can.
THE WITNESS: I think you are confounding two different things. There is a random note talking about wallets and a set of addresses. Where I talk about wallets, wallets are files, computer files, etcetera, so you have done a typical error that most people do in calling Bitcoin addresses wallets. So, you have taken two completely separate things, because I have this habit of writing wherever the hell I feel like it, usually over documents people complain that I write on, because I write notes whenever I feel like writing notes, and saying that they are related.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. So, is it your testimony here today that the note in your handwriting on the right-hand side of this document is completely unrelated to the list of Bitcoin block addresses on the left-hand side of the document?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I cannot say what it is. It is all wallets, and then there is a list of addresses. They are two different things. I have made a note. I would need to look at records to be able to match up what that was. I have left myself a note at some point. I cannot necessarily say what my note was.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Do you have those records that you could look that up?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: My lawyers have all the records I have. If anything is in there that goes to further, then that would be there.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Did you have counsel help you draft this document?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. He has already testified that this appears to be a compilation of multiple documents that were put together in error.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Did counsel help you draft page 9 of the document?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. Answer if you can.
THE WITNESS: There is no page 9 of the document. This is a compilation of multiple documents.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Exhibit. Did counsel help you draft page of the exhibit?
MS. MARKOE: He is referring to page 9 at the top.
THE WITNESS: By âcounselâ, do you mean my lawyers?
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Yes.
A. Possibly. I had lists of different addresses done by lawyers at different times.
Q. Which lawyers created lists of different addresses?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: I do not know which lawyers produced different lists at different times. I have had more lawyers than birthdays!
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Can you list all the lawyers that you have had that helped you draft lists of Bitcoin addresses?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You can answer, to the extent you remember.
THE WITNESS: That would be Clayton Utz. There would be M & K. There would be the split off from M & K that I cannot remember the name ofâââone of the M & K partners split off and formed his own firmâââand I used both those firms. There would be High Secured. There would beâââI should remember the name. The most famous law firm in Panama that got into the Panama papers, I used them too.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Do you recall the name?
A. No, I do not. I should do, because it was a big thing of discussion including everyone, and I think I blocked it out of my mind because of that. There were more law firms than I care to remember.
Q. Can you tell me what you meant by your handwritten note: âAs agreed. All wallets âŚâ What do you mean âAll walletsâ?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: âAll walletsâ means all wallets, as in files, computer files, or other such things, that hold Bitcoin.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. And you say âAs agreedâ. Agreed with who?
A. I would need to look at the rest of the document. I am not going to speculate what a page out of a mysterious document, where this is page 7 of 7 that has been attached incorrectly to a different document, means.
Q. So, sitting here today you do not recall what âAs agreedâ means; is that correct?
MS. MARKOE: Objection: mischaracterises his testimony.
THE WITNESS: I understand what âAs agreedâ means.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. You do not recall who the agreement was made with?
A. This is a note written on a thing that may or may not have any relationship to the original document, that I have one page of addresses, that I do not memorise all the addresses from, that has been constructed between four other documents and handed to me.
Q. And: â⌠held in UK in trust âŚâ Are you aware, sitting here today, of moving wallets to be held in a UK trust?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. Answer if you can.
THE WITNESS: No UK trust was ever set up.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Can you go to page 2 of 10 for me at the top.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see where it says the last party, Denariuz Seychelles Trust?
A. Yes.
Q. Who are the trustees of this trust?
A. I do not know.
Q. Who are the beneficiaries of this trust?
A. Another trust.
Q. What is the trustâs name that is a beneficiary?
A. I would need to look at records.
Q. Do you have those records?
A. Not on me.
Q. Have you given those records to your lawyers?
A. I have a box ofâââwell, actually, I had, I do not know how many boxes. There were many, many boxes that they spent many days going through, and if it is in there, it would be there.
Q. And if it is not there?
A. When things get closed down, the requirement is for Australian records to be kept for a number of years afterwards and British records to be kept for a number of years afterwards. The Seychelles records requirement is under a year, and once anything hits a period of one year, and the Seychelles trust is no more, it goes the way of anything that is no longer needed to be held, which generally means the shredder.
Q. The Denariuz Seychelles Trust, does it no longer exist?
A. It no longer exists.
Q. When did it cease to exist?
A. Probably around December 2013.
Q. And the wallet existed, what assets did it hold?
A. Again, I could not answer that.
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. So, sitting here today, you have no idea what assets the Denariuz Seychelles Trust held?
A. Sitting here today, I could not answer what assets the companies I founded hold.
Q. Okay. At the top, âDesign by Human Ltdâ?
A. Yes.
Q. What is this?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: It is a company name.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Was it a trust?
A. It is a company.
Q. Did it ever change its name?
A. You have already covered that one. Yes,
Design by Human had changed its name.
Q. To? What did it change its name to?
A. Again, I do not remember which one is which. We covered that as well. I do not remember which particular one changed its name to C01N or Denariuz, so I would need the records to check those facts, otherwise I will be saying it changed to C01N when in fact it changed to Denariuz and I will get it wrong, and I do not want to do that.
Q. Dr. Wright, you keep saying you checked the records but then tell me that you do know where the records are. What would you do if you needed to figure this information out?
A. I do not need to figure this information out.
Q. Why not?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: Because we are talking about companies that have been liquidated and no longer need to hold records.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. The assets held by the Denariuz Seychelles Trust where are they currently held?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Again, I do not even know where the current assets of my current things that I have founded happen to be right now. So you are asking me when I do not know my current company, and what it holds in four continents, where did this other trust that has now gone years ago, where does it have assets that you cannot even tell me what they are.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Under this trust document, Dr. Wright, you are entitled to borrow 650,000 Bitcoin; is that right?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Which trust document? There is no full document here.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Sorry, I misspoke. I strike that. Under this deed of loan you are entitled to borrow up to 650,000 Bitcoin; is that correct?
A. The partial deed of loan, yes.
Q. Did you in fact borrow 650,000 Bitcoin?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: How does this relate to anything, sorry?
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Dr. Wright, please answer the question unless you are instructed otherwise by your counsel.
A. I did not borrow 650,000 Bitcoin.
Q. How much did you borrow?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I do not know how much I actually borrowed.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. To take these loans, did you have to communicate with Ms. Nguyen?
A. No.
Q. Who was the one who you spoke to in order to take the loans?
A. I do not remember his last name. He worked for a company called High Secured. His first was Mark.
Q. Was it Mark Ferrier?
A. No. He had nothing to do with anything in Panama, nor did he have anything to do with High Secured.
Q. Can you go to page 7 of 10 for me.
MS. MARKOE: At the top again for the record.
MR. FREEDMAN: Yes, at the top, thank you.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Do you see the reference at the bottom to Permanent Success Limited?
A. Yes.
Q. What was Permanent Success Limited?
A. A company.
Q. Was it related to a trust in any way?
A. I do not know.
Q. Can you let me know what it says at the bottom there, âand all related trustsâ; what does that mean?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: It means any related trusts.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Were there trusts related to Permanent Success Limited?
MS. MARKOE: Objection: rule of completeness.
MR. FREEDMAN: You can answer.
THE WITNESS: I do not know. I cannot take part of a document, and part of other things, and incomplete records and then construct everything you expect me to know. As I have stated before, I do not know the structure of BITC or nChain or nChain Holdings or any other company that exists right now, so I cannot actually even tell you what I have now, and yet you are saying, âWhat happened years ago?â
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Do you have any way of contacting Mark from High Secured?
A. He is in a federal penitentiary in the USA.
Q. Which federal penitentiary?
A. I do not know. I did not follow his case.
Q. Is there a way you can determine his last name and let us know what it is later?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: You can do searches on High Secured. There is this thing called Google. You go into this task bar, you type in âHigh Securedâ, and search.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Did you pay back the loans that you took under this deed of loan?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: None of your God damn business. This has nothing to do with anything there. Does it say that it has to be paid back? Does it say what it is? You are asking about the management of a trust that has no relationship to Mr. Kleiman, no relationship to a company Dave Kleiman has worked for, no relationship to anyone who has ever been in the USA as a resident or a citizen at any point in human history, no relationship to anyone who has been in North America from Mexico up in human history, that entire continent. No person who has ever been anything to do with residing or citizenship in that part of the world has had anything at all to do with this trust, assets in this trust, management of this trust, control of this trust, etcetera. And then you want me to talk about incomplete records that have been constructed in bits and chucked together from four different documents as if this is real evidence.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Did you pay back the loans that you took from under this deed of loan, Dr. Wright?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You can answer if you can.
THE WITNESS: I do not have any records in front of me. I do not have the rest of the records for this, soââââ
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. So? Could you finish your response, please.
A. So when you can give me all the financial records of things, I will answer against them.
MS. MARKOE: Objection. Okay, withdrawn. I strike my own.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Do you go [edit: know] where Ms. Nguyen is now, Dr. Wright?
A. Earth.
Q. Do you know where on earth she is?
A. I am assuming land.
Q. Dr. Wright, I would appreciate if you would co-operate with me so we could get this done. Do you know the whereabouts of Ms. Nguyen?
A. I stated earlier I have not had any contact with Ms. Nguyen for over three years. That would generally mean I do not have any knowledge. I can restate in other forms if you want or I can be narky about it.
Q. Does Ms. Nguyen still maintain a trust role in relation to companies that are related to you?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. She is no longer a trustee of any trusts related to you?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: That is what I just said.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. When did she stop becoming a trustee of trusts related to you?
A. 2015.
Q. Did you help Ms. Nguyen disappear?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: You are presuming that she has disappeared. I do not know. You are asking me about someone I have not had contact with. My sisterâââI have not had contact with my older sister in four years. She has not disappeared. She is a hippy, and I am a hyper capitalist. We get on like oil, water, petrol and a match. But my mother would know so she has not actually disappeared.â
Now letâs go to Craig Wrightâs testimony on the stand on November 9, 2021 during the Kleiman v Wright jury trial. Where Craig in April 2019 at least still admitted it was his handwriting on the Dead of Loan (and it clearly is, of course), he now even starts backtracking on that fact!
âBY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Dr. Wright, did you not have an agreement in place with Dave Kleiman to hold Bitcoin wallets in trust until you could form a group company with them?
A. There was small amounts at one stage that was put in as an agreement, as a pre-incorporation document.
Q. Letâs take a look at your own handwriting, Dr. Wright.
MR. FREEDMAN: Ms. Vela, can you please bring up P048.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Dr. Wright, do you see the title of the document, âDeed of Loanâ?
A. I see that.
MR. FREEDMAN: Ms. Vela, can you please bring us to Page 7. Page 6. Letâs go toâââtry 8 then. Sorry. Page 8â7 at the bottom.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Is that your signature, Dr. Wright?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Is that your handwriting, Dr. Wright?
A. No.
Q. Do you see it mentions Dave K. at the very end? It says: âWalletsâ and âDave Kâ and itâs got Bitcoin addresses, Bitcoin block addresses on it?
A. Looks like: âDale.â
MR. FREEDMAN: Your Honor, Plaintiffs offerâââ
MS. MCGOVERN: Objection, Your Honor. The witness has stated itâs not his handwriting. Foundation. Foundation, Your Honor. Authenticity and foundation.
THE COURT: It goes to the weight. Overruled. It will be admitted into evidence.
(Plaintiffsâ Exhibit 048 received in evidence.)
MR. FREEDMAN: Publish this to the jury.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. It says: âDeed of Loanâ there, Dr. Wright, correct?
A. Thatâs what it says.
MR. FREEDMAN: Last, Ms. Vela, please bring us to Page 8.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Dr. Wright, I asked you if it was your signature on the bottom of that page, correct?
A. Can you just go through this one by one, please, on this document?
Q. Yes, I will, but first answer this question and then weâll go through it. Your signature?
A. No.
MS. MCGOVERN: Your Honor, I believe the witness simply wants to look at the document.
THE COURT: Yes, the witness does, but letâs continue.
THE WITNESS: I would like to look at the document.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Not your signature, Dr. Wright?
A. Not my signature.
MR. FREEDMAN: Counsel, Iâm going to the deposition of Dr. Wright, April 4th, 2019, Page 299, lines 20 through 24. Ms. Vela, can you not put anything on the screen.
MS. MCGOVERN: One second, Your Honor, please.
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MS. MCGOVERN: Lines 20 to 24?
MR. FREEDMAN: 20 to 24.
MS. MCGOVERN: Page 298? What is it?
MR. FREEDMAN: 299.
MS. MCGOVERN: No objection, Your Honor.
MR. FREEDMAN: Ms. Vela, can you please play clip number 6 about the signature.
(Video played.)
MR. FREEDMAN: Ms. Vela, can you please put back up Exhibit P48. Can you bring us back to Page 8.
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Dr. Wright, is that your handwriting on the side? I believe you just testified: âNo.â
A. No. At the time when I first looked at this document, I didnât look at it properly. I was angry. You got me angry and I didnât examine the document correctly. I will say now that no.
Q. So are you admitting that you previously testified it was your handwriting?
A. I didnât look at the document properly, and I should have noted a number of irregularities with this document. I didnât. Iâm sorry that I was angry at the time and I didnât look at the document properly. I admit that.
MR. FREEDMAN: Your Honor, itâs a party deposition. We would like to play Dr. WrightâsâââMs. Vela, can you please play clip 7.
(Video played.)
BY MR. FREEDMAN:
Q. Dr. Wright, letâs read what you testified was your handwritten note on the side. It says: âAs agreed. All wallets to be held in UK in trust until all regulatory issues solved and group company formed with Dave K. and CSW.â Do you see that?
A. That was not what I said.
Q. CSW is your initials, Craig Steven Wright?
A. No. And as I said, that looks like my handwriting. Itâs similar, but itâs different.
Q. Iâm sorry. CSW is not your initials?
A. It is not my initials.
Q. What are your initials, Dr. Wright?
A. If youâre talking about initialing something orâââthere are two different ways of saying that. If youâre saying did I initial this and those are my initials, then the answer is no. Are my initials technically CSW, then that is yes.
Q. So your initials are CSW, correct?
A. My initials are CSW.
MR. FREEDMAN: Your Honor, Iâm about to start another module. Iâm happy to keep going, but if the Court wants to take a break now.
THE COURT: This is a good time to stop. So it is obviously 12:55, Ladies and Gentlemen. Letâs go ahead and take a one-hour recess for lunch. Have a pleasant lunch.â
June 18, 2015: The 1Feex address is used by Craig in an escrow transaction requested by Calvin Ayre.
Now that defrauding the ATO with the 1Feex address had basically failed, one would think Craig Wright will give up using this address that wasnât, isnât and never will be his property or otherwise under his control.
But no. Craig has only warmed up, and he will now defraud Calvin Ayre during the June 2015 bailout with the 1Feex address. Letâs check out how that went.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/829/60/kleiman-v-wright/
As can be read above, for this escrow transaction âso we can get this movingâ (meaning, Calvin Ayre will make the funds available for Craigâs bailout), a paper wallet for the 1Feex address is used by Craig Wright. This paper wallet, however, is provably a forgery that pretends to represent some $20,000,000, which is 80,000 Bitcoin multiplied by $250 which was the price of Bitcoin by the end of the month of June in 2015.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/829/60/kleiman-v-wright/
The most comprehensive information about this paper wallet forgery is provided by WizSec Bitcoin Research, who wrote a tweetstorm, full text with images below, with a complete takedown of this fake 1Feex paper wallet.
âA brief history of Craig Wrightâs false claims to own the @1FeexV6 Bitcoin address containing 80k BTC (one of many addresses heâs claimed to own even though they belong to other people), over which heâs launched a spurious lawsuit to harass Bitcoin developers:â
âWright claims he purchased these bitcoins in 2011 via transaction from WMIRK, a small Russian money exchanger that didnât even deal in Bitcoin until 2013, and even then only in tiny amounts. As proof of his claim, Wright has a purchase order he says his ex-wife typed up for him.â
âIn reality, the @1FeexV6 address is from one of the earliest @MtGox hacks, which has been well known and documented since long before Wrightâs lawsuit.â
âAn email from âDaveâ dated 2012 says he created a paper wallet of @1FeexV6 along with several other Bitcoin rich list addresses. The email was debunked in the Kleiman case as being a forgery created in 2014, well after Dave Kleimanâs death.â
âFollowing up on this claim, Wright was showing around the following printed paper wallet circa mid-2015, seemingly in order to convince potential bailout investor Calvin Ayre that Wrightâs claimed Bitcoin holdings were real.â
âKnowing Wright, âvalidatingâ this paper wallet would just involve scanning the public key and verifying that yep it has 80k BTC on it! (which you can obviously do with *any* address) Unsurprisingly, the paper wallet is a lazy forgery, no doubt hastily thrown together for Calvin.â
âItâs just a standard paper wallet generated with https://bitcoinpaperwallet.com, which Wright has then altered to look like it contains the @1FeexV6 address instead. For reference, this is how a real paper wallet for the @1FeexV6 address from this time period should have looked.â
âFirst, note the address text in Wrightâs version. The font is wrong, itâs missing an embossing effect, and the text is misaligned. Itâs just been sloppily replaced.â
âSecond, note how the QR code is different. While Wrightâs code also contains the @1FeexV6 address, the real wallet generator uses high-redundancy codes, whereas Wrightâs looks like a basic low-redundancy code pasted in from https://the-qrcode-generator.com. Itâs not even aligned properly.â
âThird, the background pattern is wrong. In 2015, https://bitcoinpaperwallet.com generated unique background patterns depending on the actual address contained. Wrightâs wallet *does* contain a unique pattern, but itâs for some other address, not @1FeexV6Â .â
âAlso worth noting that this unique background feature was only implemented in mid-2014, placing strict bounds on when the forgery could have been created.â
âSo Wright is suing people because he claims his private keys got hacked, despite previously telling his own funders that the key was in unhackable storage. Will Wright disavow this paper wallet and admit to defrauding Calvin, or insist that itâs real and torpedo his own lawsuit?â
As said, all quotes and images so far taken from the WizSec Bitcoin Research tweetstorm.
This paper wallet forgery has also been discussed in detail in a special podcast episode of âDr BitcoinâââThe Man Who Wasnât Satoshi Nakamotoâ.
March 21, 2019: Ira Kleiman, bamboozled for many years by Craig Wright, believes that âany cryptocurrency held in the following addresses (or any bitcoin transferred out of these wallets)â belongs at least in part to him. And here we go, thereâs the 1Feex address again in a filing in the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/699/2/kleiman-v-wright/
Now imagine this: Craig Wright doesnât even own any of these addresses, and Ira Kleiman is trying to claim 50% of $0.00⌠Thatâs why it was no surprise that the Jury in the Kleiman v Wright case found âno positive connectionâ between Dave Kleimanâââand thereofore also Craig Wrightâââand Bitcoin, as we can read in court reporter Carolina Boladoâs article âNo Proof Bitcoin âInventorâ Owed Friend, Juror Tells Law360â published December 23, 2021.
May 16, 2019: Bitcoin public address 16cou gets a signing. And within two days, we will learn why this is highly relevant. The signed message is:
âAddress 16cou7Ht6WjTzuFyDBnht9hmvXytg6XdVT does not belong to Satoshi or to Craig Wright. Craig is a liar and a fraud.â
So the reader might think, what does that have to do with the 1Feex address?
WellâŚ
May 18, 2019: As an immediate result of the signing two days earlier, Craig Wright urgently creates a new forgery of the Statutory Declaration that we saw earlier under October 11, 2013. The reader might remember that this Declaration contains both the 16cou and the 1Feex address. We notice on this new forgery though, that the 1Feex address, and all other addresses, have suddenly disappeared on this 2013 Declaration. We can only guess at this moment, but it appears that the signing of the 16cou address made this whole Declaration moot, Craig must have thought.
At all times, Craig obviously found it necessary to come up with a complete new set of public Bitcoin addresses on this Declaration forgery. He then takes a snapshot of his latest homework, and posts the image in his Slack room, where Twitter user Marianne Jett picks it up, and posts the image on Twitter, stating:
âSee how REAL doc from Craig Wright w/ ink signature (not scan) on Bitcoin addresses Stephen DâEmilio had of CSWâs HTC phone doesnât match hacked/leaked doc from Exhibit 4 pg 38. Itâs why we need court & canât trust hacked docs.â
Source: https://twitter.com/TweetyBirdbrain/status/1129861223506468866
So how do we know this version of the Statutory Declaration is a Craig Wright forgery? Because the Declaration version shown at October 2013, with the 1Feex and 16cou addresses, is the version filed at the New South Wales Supreme Court in November 2013. Craig Wright never challenged it as a forgery over the course of the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit, not before creating this new Declaration forgery, not after creating this new Declaration forgery.
This new Declaration forgery was only created by Craig Wright as a desperate response to the signing two days earlier, to entertain his dedicated followers with the latest distraction of the, for them painful, truth: Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto, but just a cosplaying con man.
February 5, 2020: Craig claims that on this day the private key to 1Feex (and another address starting with 12ib7) is stolen by hackers, according his âFIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHTâ. This witness statement is from the non-public Pineapple Hack lawsuit of Craig Wright against several Bitcoin developers, but as it happened, a filing in the Kleiman v Wright court docket gives us the opportunity to obtain this witness statement from another lawsuit anyway.
Note the typo in the 1Feex address on the BCH network. The last letter should be âFâ, not âfâ, as BCH is a (minority) fork of Bitcoin, hence the public addresses created before the fork in August 2017 are exactly the same. Also, the checksum feature that Satohi implemented in Bitcoin doesnât work on the address with the typo.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/794/3/kleiman-v-wright/
June 12, 2020: Blockstream receives letter from Craigâs counsel ONTIER, mentioning the 1Feex address. Letter is immediately posted on Twitter by Samson Mow, who states âIdiotic letter that #Faketoshiâs lawyers are sending around.â
Source: https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/1271468034931036160
Immediately followed by a highly anticipated tweet from Riccardo Spagni (well known under his alias âfluffyponyâ from the Monero cryptocurrency project) where he posts images of the lawsuit where the Mt Gox hack, leading to 80,000 Bitcoin ending up on the 1Feex address:
âJust so weâre clear, Craig Wright has just openly admitted (via his lawyers) to be the guy that stole 80k BTC from Mtgox. The screenshots below show the court documents indicating the â1Feexâ address is where the stolen Mtgox funds were sent. What do you have to say, @CalvinAyre ?â
Source: https://twitter.com/fluffypony/status/1271471545790222336
November 4, 2020: An individual called Chadwick Austin claims ownership of the 1Feex address in an email to court Florida. The email is available on the Kleiman v Wright court docket on the CourtListener website.
There are several people like Mr Austin, who claim to own the 1Feex address. Heâs only taken as an example that, despite it being well known that the 1Feex address contains the Bitcoin stolen from Mt Gox, there are more scammers around like Craig Wright.
Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6309656/621/kleiman-v-wright/
February 24, 2021: Craig Wright announces his plans, according âCraig Wright Plans to Take Legal Action Against BTC Developers, Hopes to Recover Over $3B in âStolen Bitcoinââ, to try recover access to the Bitcoin on the 1Feex address after the February 5, 2020 Pineapple Hack.
Quote from the article, penned down by, there he is again, Riccardo Spagni:
Finally, we have confirmation, via his lawyers, that Craig Wright is the Mt Gox hacker (see his claim of ownership on the 1Feex address). Iâd imagine those affected by the Mt Gox hack will want to pursue Craig Wright for his theft of their BTC.
And how right Riccardo was. Meet Mr Danny Brewster, a Bitcoin OG (Original Gangster, around in the Bitcoin space since the early days) who made his counsel Anderson Kill P.C. send a letter to Craig Wright.
Source with full letter: https://twitter.com/BtcDanny/status/1364729604863389696
April 29, 2021: The aforementioned witness statement by Craig Wright, written on April 29, 2021, and quoted on February 5, 2020 already, continues with:
âThe 1Feex was originally purchased in February 2011. The purchase was funded by Liberty Reserve Dollars (a form of digital currency used at the time. which I had received for my work for online casinos), through an online Russian exchange, WMIRK. I approached the exchange and asked them how much Bitcoin I could buy with my Liberty Reserve Dollars (which I had been accumulating since 2005 and the exact amount of which I cannot recall), which is how the quantity was arrived at. I do not know from whom the exchange purchased the Bitcoin or what its procedures were for doing so. However, the Bitcoin was delivered on 1 March 2011. as the Blockchain record shows.â
And hereâs where the September 25, 2013 announcement of WMIRK, where they declared to start with Bitcoin trading, should come to mind⌠WMIRK did not even trade in Bitcoin in February 2011!
âOne of the reasons for my decision to buy the Bitcoin that was transferred to 1Feex and 12ib7 was because I had significant holdings of Liberty Reserve Dollars (as I have described above), which could only be spent in a limited number of places. Whilst Liberty Reserve Dollars may theoretically have been pegged to the US$, they were only as valuable as what they can be exchanged for. As far as I recall, I instructed the exchange (WMIRK) by telephone to buy the Bitcoin using my Liberty Reserve Dollars, but, having done so, I left the rest of the transaction to Lynn. As Thave explained, the Bitcoin that was transferred to the Addresses was purchased and held on trust. It now belongs to TTL subject to the terms of a trust known as the Tulip Trust.
I am aware that there have been rumours and speculation that TTL does not own the 1Feex Address and some individuals have even asserted that they own the 1Feex Address. In that regard:
a. It is alleged that the 1Feex coins were stolen in 2011 from a Japanese digital asset exchange called Mt Gox and even that I was responsible for such theft. This is not true. As I have explained, the 1Feex coins were purchased from a third party in exchange for Liberty Reserve dollars in late February 2011, and transferred into the 1Feex Address on 1 March 2011.!â The well-publicised hack of Mt Gox took place later in June 2011. I had nothing to do with the hack or any other alleged earlier hacks. Mt Gox has been in liquidation since 2014 and neither the liquidator nor the Japanese police have contacted me regarding the coins in the 1Feex address despite the fact that TTLâs ownership of the 1Feex Address has been public knowledge since 2018. I also made a public statement [on CoinGeek] on this matter on 16 June 2020 where I referred to all the above matters.
b. On 4 November 2020, I became aware that an individual from the USA by the name of Chadwick Austin wrote to U.S. District Judge Bloom (who is hearing the Florida Proceedings) to assert that he was the rightful owner of the 1Feex address. However, he has not pursued his claim and my solicitors have responded to it in detail.
c. Furthermore, as Mr Cain has described, my solicitors receive emails from time to time asserting claims to ownership by third parties but none appear credible (some seem nonsensical) and none have provided any evidence. I have nothing to add to Mr Cainâs evidence in that respect.
The purchase of the Bitcoin is evidenced by a contemporaneous purchase order (the âPurchase Orderâ), that was prepared by my then wife, Lynn (Wright).
And so far for Craigâs witness statement from the Pineapple Hack case. Letâs make it clear one more time: Craig falsely claims he obtained the (almost) 80,000 bitcoin on the 1Feex address from a Russian exchange in February 2011, who deposited these bitcoin on the 1Feex address on March 1, 2011, while this very same exchange didnât perform Bitcoin trading before September 2013!
Update June 30, 2022: The Financial Times ad by ONTIER
On this date, we learn from Twitter user â@Trader_Le0nâ (who couldnât help adding a snarky âFrom todayâs Financial Times⌠this is the âlost my pendrive in a boat accidentâ version of Mr. Craig Wright (self-proclaimed Satoshi).â) that Craigâs counsel ONTIER has posted an ad in the Financial Timesâ Legal Notices section. The ad:
Knowing that the holdings of the 1Feex address originally belonged to Mt Gox until the hack of their hot wallets on March 1, 2011, the responses to the tweet are predictable.
One of those responses, from ex-CEO of Mt Gox Mark Karpelès, indicate that Nobuaki Kobayashi, the trustee of Mt Gox handling the aftermath of its bankruptcy in 2014, might come into action next to let Craig Wright suffocate in the can of worms that he opened with his long trail of lies and forgeries around the 1Feex address:
Source: https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/1542772360062701568
Remember the typo in the 1Feex address on the BCH network that popped up in the Pineapple Hack lawsuit earlier? We notice that same typo, now even emphasized by Craigâs counsel ONTIER, in the Financial Times again. And this time I couldnât help giving that typo a little more attention on Twitter.
âYou think self-proclaimed #Bitcoin legal experts @ONTIERLaw@SimonCohen85 know what happens at a chain fork? You think they know what is a checksum? Or you think they just parrot liar and serial forger Craig #Faketoshi Wright, who does NOT know about all these things?â
Source: https://twitter.com/Arthur_van_Pelt/status/1542845809296801793
And the reason Iâm giving again attention to the checksum of the 1Feex public address on the BCH network is the now famous Roger Ver (promotor of BCH) quote that we can find on December 30, 2021 on Reddit:
âThe straw that broke the camelâs back was when at the dinner in Thailand, the night before the miner meeting that eventually led to the BSV / BCH split, CSW didnât even know that Bitcoin addresses have a checksum built in.â
Yes, you read that correctly. Roger Ver broke up with Craig Wright in 2018 as he found out that âSatoshiâ didnât even know that Satoshi himself had implemented checksum in Bitcoin addresses!
One can wonder how this hilarious case will end for Craig Wright when it comes to his false claims on the 1Feex address, knowing that he, so far, only produced lies supported with several debunked forgeriesâââendorsed and spread around by his counsel ONTIERâââand added many conflicting statements over the years to his false claims on this Bitcoin addressâŚ
My 2sats: not well. To be continued, no doubt!
Thanks for reading.
Sure, Craig. Whatever.