Blogs & Articles: Faketoshi And The Madden50 🔗 25 weeks ago

Out of 431 exposed Craig Wright forgeries, Justice Mellor proposed a Top 50 to be discussed during the upcoming COPA v Wright trial.

“I have well in mind Mr Flynn’s impassioned plea that there is insufficient time before and during trial to accommodate all these allegations of forgery.” — Justice Mellor, ruling October 24, 2023

Justice Mellor, ruling October 24, 2023

So here they are, all 50 of them in every — for Craig Wright — painful detail in this article, as filed by COPA on October 30, 2023. I’ve transcibed the forgeries schedule part of this filing into a more readable format on my Medium page and added quite a few relevant images.

A few statistics and fun facts.

Forging, forged, forgery: mentioned 181 times in the filing.
The reader will find Craig Wright trying to blame his ex-wife for quite a few of the forgeries. Lynn Wright is mentioned 78 times in the filing.
“In each case, the effect of the tampering is to make the documents appear to support Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact.” ‘Contrary to fact’ is mentioned 53 times in the filing. Also, make no mistake, all the forgeries are blamed on Craig Wright. An accusation of Fraud, Forgery and Dishonesty has been added to the list of accusations that the judge will go rule about after the trial.
Some of Craig Wright’s forgeries were exposed because fonts (Calibri Light and Nirmala UI) were found on the documents that didn’t even exist yet on the specific date that Craig gave his forgery. COPA went the extra mile and contacted the designers of those fonts.
“Further, the designers of those fonts have given evidence relied on by COPA in these proceedings that the fonts were not yet conceived of or designed by the purported date of this document.”
The same happened with a handwritten document, backdated by Craig Wright to August 2007:
“The document is handwritten on a pre-printed pad that was manufactured in China. Bird & Bird has obtained a copy of the original PDF print proof document of the pad directly from the manufacturer. […] The PDF print proofs known as Exhibit MS1, which this document matches, date from no earlier than 6 November to 9 November 2009. The face-value date of August 2007 is therefore false and misleading. Further, the purported notes of planning for work to be done throughout 2007 and 2008 are also therefore false and misleading.”

The killer of these 50 forgeries however is that Craig Wright appears to have been taking 10 of them from previous lawsuits (typically the Kleiman v Wright and hodlonaut v Wright cases) and has been reusing these exact same forgeries in the COPA v Wright lawsuit.

That’s pretty wild, when you think of it.

Source: Twitter

Also, let’s bring back in memory that COPA’s Madden report already made a victim: Craig Wright was fired from nChain. Because, what happened in late September 2023?

September 22, 2023: “In offices at 7–8 Market Place, just a stone’s throw from Oxford Street, a so-called “war-room” had been set up in the deepest secrecy. A special session was prepared here on September 22 this autumn. This was dry training for the big trial against the California billionaires. Now Craig Wright was to be tested on whether he was really Satoshi Nakamoto, but in a controlled setting. According to Ager-Hanssen, the real aim was to pulverize Wright’s explanation. […] There is only one reasonable conclusion that I can come to. It is that Dr. Wright is a massive liar.” — Ager-Hanssen: I Have Been In Many Wars But Nothing Has Been Like This

From here it was perfectly clear to Christen Ager-Hanssen that defeat in the COPA v Wright case — trial starts January 15, 2024 — is inevitable.

September 23, 2023: Calvin Ayre emails Craig Wright that he intends to stop funding all Craig’s lawsuits. Stefan Matthews forwards this email to Christen Ager-Hanssen. The full email can be found in this article.

September 24, 2023: Around 7 pm Craig Wright is being sacked by Christen Ager-Hanssen and Stefan Matthews after discussing the accusations of Craig’s fraudulent behavior in the COPA case and elsewhere.

September 25, 2023: Craig Wright’s leave further formalised.

Now please go and enjoy this take down of 50 Craig Wright made forgeries.

Written and transcribed from COPA’s filing by Arthur van Pelt

ABOUT EDITS AND UPDATES to this article: as more material might become available after publication of this article, it might 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.

Where it all started: April 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
Claim No: IL-2021–000019

BETWEEN: CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE (Claimant)
- and
DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT (Defendant)

SCHEDULE OF DR WRIGHT’S FORGED DOCUMENTS

Introduction

This Schedule is annexed to the Re-Re-Re-Amended Particulars of Claim and is the Schedule referred to in paragraph 35A. It is served pursuant to the judgment of the Court dated 24 October 2023 (“the Judgment”) and the order consequent upon that judgment.
As provided for in paragraphs 69–71 of the Judgment, this Schedule identifies the documents for which the Court has permitted the Claimant (“COPA”) to put forward allegations of forgery.
The Schedule:
(a.) identifies by ID number which of the Reliance Documents COPA alleges to be forged and which other documents COPA alleges to be forged;
(b.) specifies all the reasons on which COPA relies in support of the allegations of forgery, cross-referenced to relevant paragraphs of the principal expert report of Mr Madden (including its appendices); and
(c.) specifies the reasons why COPA invites the inference that the Defendant (“Dr Wright”) was responsible for the alteration of or tampering with each document or was aware of the alteration or tampering.
In the body of this Schedule, each document is addressed in its own section, identified by ID number and a short reference name. Documents which are Reliance Documents are identified as such in the title. The first part of each section states briefly what the document purports to be. The second part gives reasons for the allegation of forgery, cross-referenced to the relevant paragraphs of Mr Madden’s report. The third part gives reasons for the inference to be drawn that Dr Wright was responsible for the forgery of the document or (in the alternative) that he at least knew of the forgery.
In addition to the specific reasons for the inference of responsibility or knowledge given in respect of each document, COPA relies upon the following additional reasons which apply to all the documents in the Schedule (and so are set out here rather than repeated for each individual document):

a. Given the extent of the forgery of documents which Dr Wright has disclosed and of documents on which he has relied for his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, it is to be inferred that Dr Wright was responsible for each of the forgeries or (alternatively) that he at least knew of the forgeries.

b. Given the lack of any plausible explanation why any other person would have committed forgeries as set out in this Schedule, it is to be inferred that Dr Wright was responsible for each of the forgeries.

c. Since 2016, Dr Wright has been very actively promoting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto and has been devoting considerable effort to that claim. It is likely that documents personal to him which bear signs of having been altered since that time to give support to his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto were altered by him, at his direction or at least with his knowledge. The fact that numerous documents have been altered with this apparent purpose since 2016 is consistent with him creating an evidential trail to provide false support to his dishonest claim.

d. Each of the documents addressed here has been disclosed by Dr Wright and assigned an ID_ number within Dr Wright’s own disclosure.

e. Following receipt of Dr Wright’s disclosure, COPA wrote to Dr Wright to inform him that it was likely to raise allegations of forgery in respect of his disclosure and to request access to the devices or forensic images from which the documents were obtained. Dr Wright refused COPA’s request to allow for inspection of the devices or forensic images from which the documents were obtained, despite the evident value of such inspection (as now attested by the experts of both parties in forensic document examination).

f. The characteristics and indications of tampering relied upon in this schedule are varied and appear across many different documents which were (and/or purport to be) created at a variety of times and which address a wide variety of different aspects of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Although the documents are in that sense varied, they have common features in that:

(i) there are various common elements to the indications of tampering and the techniques used to alter their content, when Dr Wright’s disclosure is taken as a whole;

(ii) they were produced by Dr Wright and were in his custody and control; and

(iii) that in each case, the effect of the tampering is to make the documents appear to support Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, contrary to fact.

g. Following, and in evident response to, the service of the Madden Report, Dr Wright has acted as follows:

(i). He has sought to disclaim responsibility for the documents previously designated by him as Reliance Documents, including through his provision of extended chain of custody information (information he had previously refused to supply even in more basic form) in which he has for the first time suggested that the documents were handled by many unidentified further persons. He has thus sought to distance himself from documents only once their veracity has been called into question.

(ii). He has provided implausible explanations for alteration and tampering with documents and has raised factual allegations previously said by him to be irrelevant. These are new explanations which are the more implausible because Dr Wright has had the relevant documents for many years and has disclosed and/or deployed many of them in previous proceedings without previously giving these explanations. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with Dr Wright’s own account of his technical skill in computer security that he did not identify document alterations or reasons for documents to be unreliable before the service of the Madden Report.

(iii). He has sought to replace his Reliance Documents with versions he has supposedly “discovered” in hard drives and which he claims to be preferable versions. Given his involvement in previous litigation concerning his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (e.g. the Kleiman, McCormack and Granath cases) it is implausible that he would only now have discovered accessible documents of key importance to that claim. For the avoidance of doubt, COPA will say that this conduct is indicative of Dr Wright seeking to react to COPA’s discovery of forged documents for which he was responsible or of which he at least had knowledge.

In the above paragraphs, reference to Dr Wright being “responsible for” forgeries means (as set out in paragraph 35B of the Re-Re-Re-Amended Particulars of Claim) that Dr Wright either carried out the relevant acts of tampering / alteration himself or that they were done at his direction and/or with his knowledge.
References to “ID” numbers in this document are references to such documents disclosed by Dr Wright in these proceedings under that number. References to witness statements are given by reference to surname and statement number in the conventional way. References to “PM” documents are references to Madden Report Appendices and their paragraphs. Thus, [PM1 at 2–3] would refer to paragraphs 2–3 of Appendix PM1.

(1) ID_000073 Statistics Assessment homework

The document purports to be a piece of homework prepared by Dr Wright in connection with his STAT6640 course at the University of Newcastle in Australia. It is dated on its face for 28 October 2005, but bears internal metadata dating it to 17 September 2005.
The document contains language similar to that found in the Bitcoin White Paper.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

ID_000073 contains hidden embedded content indicating that the content was copied directly from the Bitcoin White Paper, and which has then been edited away to appear to be precursor content. [PM38 at 16–21]
The document has been backdated. The first page of the document is very similar to ID_000077 including the same coversheet layout, course number, date of signature (28 October 2005) and deadline month (October 2005), and it shares other characteristics of ID_000077. However, ID_000077, a genuine document, is dated 28 October 2005 in its metadata as well as on its face, which is after the “Last modified” date in the internal metadata of ID_000073. [PM38 at 9 and 23]
ID_000073 bears the same signature date as the later ID_000077. Taking the metadata of ID_000073 at face value, that date was over a month in the future at the time ID_000073 purports to have been created. [PM38 at 9d]
ID_000073 contains embedded hidden text sourced from ID_000077, a reversal of the timeline given on the face of the documents and their metadata. [PM38 at 11–13]
ID_000073 contains an embedded previous draft version within the document file, indicating that it previously contained the full table of contents found in ID_000077. This is inconsistent with the name given in connection with that previous draft, which is “Possible Project”. [PM38 at 14–15]
Although the structure and cover sheet of the document is derived from ID_000077, the recorded edit time is very short compared to the content of the files, which is indicative that the main body of content of the file was sourced from a different precursor document. No such precursor document has been disclosed. [PM38 at 4]
Along with ID_000073, another version of the same document has been disclosed, ID_000142. Analysis using that version as well reveals that metadata have been edited. [PM38 at 23 to 35]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done by him in 2005, elements of which then appeared in the Bitcoin White Paper), contrary to fact.
ID_000073 is substantially written in Dr Wright’s own handwriting.
ID_000073 is headed on each page with Dr Wright’s name and student number as identifying information, “Craig S Wright, c3047661”.
ID_000073 is signed on the first page with the letters “CSW” against a statement declaring “that this assessment is my own work unless otherwise acknowledged”.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on work done in connection with his MStat at Newcastle University, as part of his claim to have been working on the concepts behind the Bitcoin White Paper. [Wright 1 at 95]
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright claims to have discussed the concepts behind the Bitcoin White Paper with teaching staff at the University of Newcastle. [Wright 4 at 52]
Dr Wright has not disclosed the underlying source documents from which the content of ID_000073 was sourced. [PM38 at 23]
ID_000073 contains hidden text embedded within the document which contradicts the information presented on the face of the document, a characteristic of documents found throughout Dr Wright’s disclosure in these proceedings including documents on which he primarily relies.

Note Arthur: what follows are several of Craig Wright’s LLM Dissertation proposals that have been altered by Craig in recent years to contain Bitcoin related quotes and hints. But did you know that this LLM Dissertation even without these Bitcoin related quotes and hints is already a treasure box of plagiarisms?

(2) ID_000199 LLM Dissertation proposal 1 (Reliance Document)

The document purports to be an LLM Dissertation proposal made to Northumbria University prepared by Dr Wright in connection with his LLM course. It is dated as being created between 18 June 2007 and 23 October 2007, and contains language similar to that found in the Bitcoin White Paper.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. The document contains hidden, embedded Grammarly timestamps indicating its true date to be later than 18 August 2019 at 9:10am (UTC). [PM25 at 8–13]
Searching online revealed the presence of a very similar document uploaded by Dr Wright to the website SSRN which was created just a few hours after the Grammarly timestamp of ID_000199, on the same date 18 August 2019. That uploaded document (the “SSRN Upload”)
was created with software that did not yet exist in 2007. [PM25 at 40–46]
The SSRN Upload document has not been disclosed by Dr Wright.
The Grammarly software did not exist in 2007 [Madden Report at 62c] but is contemporaneous for 2019. [Madden Report at 70–72]
ID_003993, a document with the filename “LLM_ProposalA.doc” and which shares content with ID_000199 (including the embedded Grammarly timestamp) was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. [ID_003927, PM26 at 25–38]
The document is part of a chain of editing of several documents, three of which are Reliance Documents of Dr Wright, all of which inherited the same embedded hidden Grammarly timestamp, indicating that the document ID_000199 is created as a downstream document from that source. The interaction with Grammarly (on 18 August 2019) took place before the creation of ID_000199 and other documents created from the same common source. [PM25 at 7–8 and 12–13]
A common precursor document to these files exists, which has not been disclosed. [PM25 at 24a]
Taken individually and as a set, the group of three Reliance Documents sharing common characteristics with ID_000199 are inconsistent in their metadata. [PM25 at 18–24]
Among Dr Wright’s disclosure is another document, ID_003935, which presents as if it is a precursor to ID_000199 and which is dated as if it was last edited earlier than ID_000199. However, ID_003935 contains hidden embedded text from ID_000199 (not present on its face) indicating that ID_003935 has probably been created downstream of ID_000199 and artificially backdated, with the misleading effect that it lends credibility to ID_000199, placing it within an apparently credible continuum of editing, contrary to fact. [PM25 26–27]
Within Dr Wright’s disclosure is another document, ID_000217, which presents as if it is an ancestor document to ID_000199 and which is dated as if it was last edited earlier than ID_000199. At face value, the similar and earlier-dated file in the chain of editing (ID_000217) ought to have a longer Edit Time and a higher revision count than ID_000199, consistent with the same file being picked up and further edited while the Edit Time counter continues to count. However, the internal metadata records the reverse. This has the misleading effect of (on the face of the documents) appearing to place ID_000199 within an apparently credible continuum of editing, contrary to fact. [PM25 at 22–23]
ID_000199 has an Edit Time longer than the document it appears to be based on and (impossibly) longer than the time between its Created and Last Saved timestamps. [PM25 at 39]
ID_000199 has an implausible edit time of in excess of 131 days consistent with the use of clock manipulation techniques. [PM25 at 22b]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done by him in 2007, elements of which then appeared in the Bitcoin White Paper), contrary to fact.
Dr Wright has positively asserted in these proceedings that ID_000199 is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
In addition to ID_000199, Dr Wright has also positively asserted in these proceedings that two other related documents [ID_000217 and ID_003702, both also included in this schedule], are documents on which he positively relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
Dr Wright has also relied in these proceedings on his Northumbria University degree award transcript as being a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [ID_000491]
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright positively relies upon his LLM Thesis at the University of Northumbria as forming part of the story behind his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 1 at 56–60]
19. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright claims to have discussed the concepts behind the Bitcoin White Paper with teaching staff at the University of Northumbria. [Wright 4 at 52]
Dr Wright has relied on his LLM Thesis Proposal, in previous proceedings, including on oath.
The document ID_000199 is part of a chain of editing of documents disclosed by Dr Wright, all of which have a common precursor source, as indicated by the inclusion of the same Grammarly timestamp and other characteristics. [ID_000199, ID_000217, ID_003702] [PM25 at 12]
Dr Wright shared a similar document to ID_000199 on social media on the same date indicated in the hidden embedded Grammarly timestamp. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account.
A very similar document, the SSRN Upload, was uploaded to the internet by Dr Wright on the date indicated in the hidden embedded Grammarly timestamp.
Dr Wright is recorded in the metadata as the first author.
Dr Wright is a user of Grammarly software.
Although the document metadata presents Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright after 18 August 2019, and a copy of a similar document later sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [ID_003927, PM26 at 25–38]

(3) ID_000217 LLM Dissertation proposal 2 (Reliance Document)

The document purports to be an LLM Dissertation proposal made to Northumbria University, prepared by Dr Wright in connection with his LLM course. It is dated as being created between 18 June 2007 and 28 October 2007, and contains language similar to that found in the Bitcoin
White Paper.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. The document contains hidden, embedded Grammarly timestamps indicating its true date to be later than 18 August 2019 at 9:10am (UTC). [PM25 at 8–13]
The document contains embedded references to fonts including Calibri Light and Nirmala UI [PM25 at 20]. Those fonts were not yet published in 2008 [Madden Report at 165]. Further, the designers of those fonts have given evidence relied on by COPA in these proceedings that the
fonts were not yet conceived of or designed by the purported date of this document.
The document contains embedded internal references to Microsoft schema not yet published in 2008 but which are contemporary to 2012 and later. [PM25 at 21]
Searching online revealed the presence of a very similar document uploaded by Dr Wright to the website SSRN which was created just a few hours after the Grammarly timestamp of ID_000199, on the same date 18 August 2019. That uploaded document (the “SSRN Upload”) was created with software that did not yet exist in 2007. [PM25 at 40–46]
The SSRN Upload document has not been disclosed by Dr Wright.
The Grammarly software did not exist in 2007 [Madden Report at 62c] but is contemporaneous for 2019. [Madden Report at 70–72]
ID_003993, a document with the filename “LLM_ProposalA.doc” and which shares content with ID_000217 (including the embedded Grammarly timestamp) was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. [ID_003927, PM26 at 25–38]
The document is part of a chain of editing of several documents, three of which are Reliance Documents of Dr Wright, all of which inherited the same embedded hidden Grammarly timestamp, indicating that the document was created as a downstream document from a common source. The interaction with Grammarly (on 18 August 2019) took place before the creation of ID_000199 and other documents created from the same common source. [PM25 at 7–8 and 12–13]
There is a common precursor document to these files, which has not been disclosed. [PM25 at 24a]
Taken individually and as a set, the group of documents sharing common characteristics with ID_000217 are inconsistent in their metadata. [PM25 at 18–24]
Within Dr Wright’s disclosure is another document, ID_000199, which presents as if it is a subsequent document to ID_000217 and which is dated as if it was last edited later than ID_000199. At face value, the similar and earlier-dated file in the chain of editing (ID_000217) ought to have a longer Edit Time and a higher revision count than ID_000199, consistent with the same file being picked up and further edited while the Edit Time counter continues to count. However, the internal metadata records the reverse. This has the misleading effect of (on the face of the documents) appearing to place ID_000217 within an apparently credible continuum of editing, contrary to fact. [PM25 at 22–23].
ID_00217 has an implausible edit time of 131 days 21 hours and 50 minutes consistent with the use of clock manipulation techniques. [PM25 at 22b]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Dr Wright has positively asserted in these proceedings that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done by him in 2007, elements of which then appeared in the Bitcoin White Paper), contrary to fact.
In addition to ID_000217, Dr Wright has also positively asserted in these proceedings that two other related documents [ID_000199 and ID_003702], are documents on which he positively relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
Dr Wright has also relied in these proceedings on his Northumbria University degree award transcript as being a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [ID_000491]
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright positively relies upon his LLM Thesis at the University of Northumbria as forming part of the story behind his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 1 at 56–60]
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright claims to have discussed the concepts behind the Bitcoin White Paper with teaching staff at the University of Northumbria. [Wright 4 at 52]
Dr Wright has relied on his LLM Thesis Proposal, in previous proceedings, including on oath.
The document ID_000217 is part of a chain of editing of documents disclosed by Dr Wright, all of which have a common precursor source as indicated by the inclusion of the same Grammarly timestamp and other characteristics. [PM25 at 12]
Dr Wright shared a hash-identical document to ID_000217 on social media on the same date indicated in the hidden embedded Grammarly timestamp. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account.
A very similar document, the SSRN Upload, was uploaded to the internet by Dr Wright on the date indicated in the hidden embedded Grammarly timestamp.
Dr Wright is recorded in the metadata as the first author.
Dr Wright is a user of Grammarly software.
Although the document metadata presents Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright after 18 August 2019, and a copy of a similar document later sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright relies. The metadata of that zip file itself are also irregular. [ID_003927, PM26 at 25–38]

(4) ID_000227 Economics of BitCoin Nodes (Reliance Document)

The document purports to contain notes relating to “The Economics of central core BitCoin Nodes” and is dated as if it was created in the period September-October 2008.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. Within the document are several hidden embedded zip files containing references to Microsoft Schema dating from 2014–2015 which did not exist in 2008. These references are not visible to someone editing the document or reviewing its internal content without forensic analysis. [PM26 at 16–17]
Equations within ID_000227 were created with MathType software v6.9, a version dating from February 2013 which did not exist in 2008. [PM40 at 32, 42]
The document contains redundant hidden content of previous edits which do not appear on the face of the document. [PM26 at 19–20]
The hidden embedded text within the document includes references to a web page URL which did not exist until on or after 11 April 2019. [PM26 at 21]
The reference to the 11 April 2019 URL has been deleted from the face of the document and replaced with a footnote which appears to be a “note to self” about what would need to be added in a future draft (“Note: I will need to link to laws such as the CFAA (USA) — see LLM […]”). Other footnotes have been introduced or edited to refer to Bitcoin in the future tense. The misleading effect of these edits is to make the document appear as if it was created at a time before Bitcoin was created. In fact, the document was created later, after 11 April 2019, and the anachronistic content was obscured by editing. [PM26 at 19–24]
The document was created from a precursor document after 11 April 2019. No precursor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM26 at 23]
The document ID_000227 has an implausible edit time of 20 days 19 hours and 22 minutes consistent with the use of clock manipulation techniques. [PM26 at 6–10]
The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. The metadata of that zip file is also irregular. [ID_003937, PM26 at 1, 25–38]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done by him in September / October 2008 which looked ahead to Bitcoin), contrary to fact.
Although the document metadata purports Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright after 11 April 2019, and a copy later sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright primarily relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [ID_003927, PM26 at 1, 25–38]
Dr Wright shared a document with identical content on social media on 16 January 2020, contemporaneously with the aforesaid email to Lynn Wright. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the Request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account.
The content introduced into the document, having the effect of making it appear to date from earlier than its true date, is phrased in the first person as a note from Dr Wright to himself.
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.
Dr Wright is recorded in the metadata as the first author.
Dr Wright has not disclosed the precursor documents [PM26 at 23].

The TimeCoin forgery shown here popped up during the hodlonaut v Wright lawsuit in Norway

(5) ID_000254 Timecoin ODT Whitepaper (Reliance Document)

The document purports to be a precursor draft of the Bitcoin White Paper and is presented as if written by Dr Wright. It is dated in the period 6 May 2008 to 12 December 2008 in its metadata, and Dr Wright states its approximate date to be 6 May 2008 in his Chain of Custody information.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. Rather than being a precursor document to the Bitcoin White Paper as it purports to be, this document has been created from the Bitcoin White Paper subsequently and edited in such a way that it appears as if it was precursor work. [PM2 60–64].
ID_000254 has apparently been converted from the Bitcoin White Paper (which is a PDF) into a more easily editable format and has then undergone further conversions via intermediate documents [PM2 60–64]. Font configurations and the absence of diagrams are consistent with this conclusion [PM2 17–28]. No such intermediate document has been disclosed.
Diagrams have been omitted from this document as a result of the conversion process from PDF. The inclusion of the object replacement character within the document at a point where a diagram would be expected to appear is consistent with ID_000254 being created by a process of conversion of a different document. [PM2 at 28]
Where diagrams are absent, the document nevertheless preserves margin indentations from the Bitcoin White Paper PDF, but which do not match the content of the document. [PM2 at 29–37]
The document irregularly contains words throughout in which hyphens ought to appear but are missing. This is not consistent with ordinary dictation or typing error but is as an artefact of conversion from PDF and backdating. [PM2 at 38–44]
A conversion of the Bitcoin White Paper PDF to editable form would result in corruption of formulae. In each case where those formulae would have appeared corrupted, they have been deleted from ID_000254, leaving behind white space. [PM2 at 45–48]
The document contains irregular line breaks consistent with conversion from the Bitcoin White Paper PDF into editable form and backdating. [PM2 at 49–51]
The document contains text that matches the corrected text of the Bitcoin White Paper (2009 version) [PM2 at 12]. It does not match the October 2008 or November 2008 versions of the Bitcoin White Paper, even though this document purports to be earlier than both of them.
The document has been disclosed with irregular metadata listed in relation to its Created and Last Accessed external metadata properties. [PM2 at 6–11]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (presenting as a predecessor draft of the Bitcoin White Paper and supposedly written by him in early 2008), contrary to fact. Further, the document uses the same software (OpenOffice Writer) as used by Satoshi Nakamoto.
Dr Wright has positively asserted in these proceedings that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
The document bears Dr Wright’s name and contact details.
The contact details included refer to Charles Sturt University. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed to have drafted and shared versions of the Bitcoin White Paper while studying at Charles Sturt University, and to have discussed the concepts with teaching staff at Charles Sturt University. [Wright 1 at 87, Wright 4 at 52]
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright positively relies upon the presence of the word “Timecoin” in documents he has disclosed as being precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper and thus forming part of the story behind his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Moreover, on the basis of his narrative, this is a detail which would have been known to him and to few, if any, others. [Wright 1 at 26, Wright 4 at 6.c.x.]
The document contains metadata that purports to pre-date the Bitcoin White Paper, indicating efforts at backdating to support Dr Wright’s claim.
Dr Wright claims, in his chain of custody information, that only he drafted this document.
Dr Wright has stated in these proceedings that this was a draft of a document under the name TimeCoin which later became bitcoin. [Exhibit CSW-5]
Dr Wright has not disclosed the apparent intermediate document from which this document was created. [PM2 at 63]

(6) ID_000258 “Economic Security.doc” (Reliance Document)

The document purports to be work associated with the development of Bitcoin. It refers to “BitCoin” in the future tense and is dated 5 to 7 November 2008.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated, with signs of apparently contradictory metadata. [PM29 at 17–18]
The document is an altered version of a document actually published by Dr Wright in May 2019 (the “Economic Security Medium Article”). [PM29 at 10–15]
From the Economic Security Medium Article to ID_00258, the tense has been changed from past to future, to give the document the appearance of predating Bitcoin, contrary to fact. [PM29 at 14–15]
From the Economic Security Medium Article to ID_000258, the capitalisation of Bitcoin has been adapted to “BitCoin” (which would more closely align to Dr Wright’s account of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto and his use of terminology). [PM29 at 15]
The document contains hidden embedded text of previous edits. The hidden embedded text is adapted from the Economic Security Medium Article, and text sections are phrased in the present tense (as is the Economic Security Medium Article). The hidden embedded text does not appear on the face of the document. [PM29 at 15]
The Economic Security Medium Article has not been disclosed by Dr Wright. Further, no corresponding draft document or donor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM29 at 16]
The internal metadata records an anomalous edit time in excess of 57 days, despite a very short period between file created and last modified date, indicative of the use of clock manipulation techniques (1 day 19hrs 14 mins). [PM29 at 5]
The period of editing this document overlaps with a number of other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure. [PM24 at 33–35]
The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. The metadata of that zip file is also irregular. [ID_003934, PM29 at 2; PM26, 25–38]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Dr Wright has positively asserted that ID_000258 is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done privately by him and looking ahead to Bitcoin), contrary to fact.
The document is written in the first person from the perspective of Dr Wright.
Dr Wright is listed as the original author in the internal metadata of the file.
The Economic Security Medium Article was posted by Dr Wright on his own account on the website Medium.com.
Although the document metadata present Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright, and a copy sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright relies. The metadata of that zip file itself are also irregular. [ID_003934, PM29 at 2, PM26 at 25–38]
Dr Wright shared a document with identical content on social media on 16 January 2020, contemporaneously with the aforesaid email to Lynn Wright. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account.
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.
Dr Wright has not disclosed associated relevant documents.

(7) ID_000260 OpenOffice 2.4 document (Reliance Document)

The document purports to be a precursor to the Bitcoin White Paper and is presented as if written by Dr Wright. It is dated 8–9 March 2008 in its metadata and Dr Wright states it to be from 2008 in his evidence in these proceedings. [Exhibit CSw-14]

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document contains language taken from the Bitcoin White Paper, but the document has been backdated as if to make it appear earlier than it is. [PM23 at 41–45]
The document purports to have been created on 8 March 2008 and last saved on 9 March 2008 using OpenOffice.org version 2.4 with internal version number 680m12$Build-9286. However, this version of OpenOffice.org was not uploaded for use until 16 March 2008 and was not generally released until 27 March 2008, both of which post-date the purported date of ID_000260. [PM23 at 3, 6, 10, 24–34, 44]
Further, in addition to not being uploaded until 16 March 2008, the software in question (OpenOffice.org 2.4 680m12$Build-9286) was not even in development until after 14 March 2008. [PM23 at 35–40]
The document contains content imported from an external document or documents. No external document has been disclosed. [PM23 at 41c]
The document has an implausible edit time, matching precisely the time between its created and last saved timestamp. [PM23 at 14–18]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting a precursor document to the Bitcoin White Paper, supposedly prepared in early 2008), contrary to fact.
Further, the document has been created using the same software (OpenOffice.org) and same version (version 2.4) as used by Satoshi Nakamoto to write all versions of the Bitcoin White Paper, indicating an intention to create a document within Dr Wright’s possession with the appearance of being a predecessor. [PM3 at 23, 40, and 47]
Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

(8) ID_000367 “Block diffusion within bitcoin” (Reliance Document)

The document purports to be precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper relating to network theory and mentioning “bitcoin”. It is dated to the period 15 August 2008 to 8 September 2008.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. [PM30 21–24]
The document contains content taken from a third-party source available online which was published not before 29 April 2012 (the “2012 ResearchGate Article”). [PM30 at 8–13]
The document includes a reference section that closely matches the 2012 ResearchGate Article. However, five references which would have been anachronistic to 2008 have been deleted from the document. Although the five references have been removed from the references section, the main body of the text still mentions 4 out of 5 of them. [PM30 at 14–18]
The document contains text formatted in fonts which are not typical for Microsoft Windows and MS Word documents, but which fonts are included in the 2012 ResearchGate Article. Not only the text, but also its font formatting, has been copied from the 2012 ResearchGate article.
[PM30 at 19–20]
The document was created within 1 minute before ID_000371, another “Lynn Wright document” bearing independent indicia of tampering. [PM27 at 17b]
ID_00367 has an implausible edit time in excess of 24 days. During that time it was saved only once, implying that it was left unsaved for 34,881 minutes before being saved. [PM30 at 5–8]
The document contains passages of red text and placeholder brackets apparently indicating that the document was in the process of being edited with a view to changing the references, but without that process being finalised before disclosure. [PM30 at 24]
The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. [ID_003930, PM30 at 1, PM 26 at 25–38]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on purported work of the type referred to in this document as “foundational” for Bitcoin. [Wright 1 at 53–54]
The effect of the tampering is therefore to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work by Dr Wright on a subject of interest to him, but with reference to Bitcoin), contrary to fact.
In these proceedings (and previously), Dr Wright has claimed that his development of Bitcoin was influenced by work on networks as covered by this document. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright 1 at 54]
Although the document metadata presents Lynn Wright to have been the only author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright after February 2013, and sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [ID_003930, PM30 at 1, PM26 at 25–38]
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

(9) ID_000371 “Phase transitions in block propagation networks” (Reliance Document)

The document purports to be precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper relating to network theory and mentioning “bitcoin”. It is dated to 8 September 2008. Further, Dr Wright states it to be from 8 September 2008 in his evidence in these proceedings. [Exhibit CSW-14]

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. [PM40 at 42]
Equations within ID_000371 were created with MathType software v6.9, a version dating from February 2013 which did not exist in 2008. [PM40 at 22–42]
The document was created within 1 minute after ID_000367, another “Lynn Wright document” bearing independent indicia of tampering. [PM27 at 17b]
The document was created in the same user session as ID_000396, another “Lynn Wright document” which contains common content as well as independent indicia of tampering.
The document was created by copying content from external, online sources. However, the content has been modified to appear to relate to bitcoin by inserting references to “bitcoin” into the source text. [PM27 21–25]
The document has an edit time of 1 minute, but the content within the document would have taken longer to create, indicating that the content was imported from a donor source [PM27 at 13–15]. No donor source document has been disclosed.
The document editing period overlaps with other similar documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure. [PM27 at 32]
A hash-identical copy of the document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. [ID_003939, PM 27 at 7, PM26 at 25–38]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on purported work of the type referred to in this document as “foundational” for Bitcoin. [Wright 1 at 53–54].
The effect of the tampering is therefore to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work by Dr Wright on a subject of interest to him, but with reference to Bitcoin), contrary to fact.
In these proceedings (and previously), Dr Wright has claimed that his development of Bitcoin was influenced by work on networks as covered by this document, including Game Theory. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright 1 at 6, 20, 54]
Although the document metadata presents Lynn Wright to have been the only author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright after February 2013, and sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email (long after they were separated), contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [ID_003939, PM 27 at 7, PM26 at 25–38]
Dr Wright has not disclosed the donor document or intermediate source document from which the content of ID_000371 has been generated.
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

(10) ID_000395 “Documentary Credits under the UCP 500” (Reliance Document)

The document purports to be work done by Dr Wright at Northumbria University in relation to his LLM course. It is dated 10 September 2008.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. [PM31 at 45–46]
It contains timestamped URL references embedded within the cited references which were copied from websites that did not exist in 2008, and which were not created before 23 November 2015. [PM31 at 22–41]
The content of ID_000395 has been copied from an internet archive copy of Dr Wright’s blog (the “Archived Blog”), at a time later than 23 November 2015, and then incorporated into an MS Word document in a manner intended to make it appear to be part of his LLM study at Northumbria University (on which Dr Wright relies as part of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto). [PM31 at 31–41]
The document contains hidden, embedded Grammarly timestamps indicating its true date to be later than 22 August 2019. [PM31 at 42–44]
The Grammarly software did not exist in 2008 [Madden Report at 62c] but is contemporaneous for 2019. [Madden Report at 70–72]
The document was created within 3 minutes before ID_000396, another “Lynn Wright document” bearing independent indicia of tampering. [PM27 at 17.a.]
The title property indicated in the internal metadata is inherited from a previous document. It does not relate to the content of ID_000395 or any other document disclosed in Dr Wright’s disclosure dataset but does apparently correlate to the content of a blog post published online by Dr Wright on 30 September 2018, an apparent precursor document. [PM31 at 18–21]
The date of the document is not contemporaneous to the events it purports to present. The purported date of the document is after the date of ID_000491.

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
Dr Wright is recorded as an author in the metadata. The document contains Dr Wright’s identifying information at the Northumbria University.
In these proceedings (and previously), Dr Wright has claimed that his development of Bitcoin was influenced by interest in law and economic theory as covered by this document. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright 1 at 6, 22, 58, 66]
Dr Wright has also relied in these proceedings on his Northumbria University degree award transcript as being a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto [ID_000491]. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright also claims to have discussed the concepts behind the Bitcoin White Paper with teaching staff at the University of Northumbria. [Wright 4 at 52]
Dr Wright shared a link to the Archived Blog on social media contemporaneously with the date indicated in the hidden embedded Grammarly timestamp. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the Request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account.
The apparent precursor document referred to in the title metadata has not been disclosed by Dr Wright.
Dr Wright is a user of Grammarly software.
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

(11) ID_000396 “Noncooperative finite games” (Reliance Document)

The document purports to be precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper relating to network theory and mentioning “bitcoin”. It is dated to 10 September 2008.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. [PM27 at 38]
The document was created within 3 minutes after ID_000395, another “Lynn Wright document” bearing independent indicia of tampering. [PM27 at 17.a.]
The document was created in the same user session as ID_000371, another “Lynn Wright document” which contains common content as well as independent indicia of tampering.
Along with ID_000371, this document was created by copying content from an intermediate document deriving from a publicly available source document. [PM27 at 18–25]
The document contains a redundant reference section listing sources which do not relate to the main body content of the document. [PM27 at 20]
The document contains hidden, embedded text of previous editing history, including comments which have since been deleted from the document. Among the embedded text is a series of comments dating from 22 October 2008. However, that was some 6 weeks in the future at the purported Created and Last Modified date in the internal metadata of the file. [PM27 at 26–30]
The document has an edit time of 1 minute, but the content within the document would have taken longer to create, indicating that the content was imported from a donor source [PM27 at 13–15]. No donor source document has been disclosed.
The document was conducted by an unlikely sequence of saves between two authors in two minutes. [PM27 at 5–6]
The document editing period overlaps with other similar documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure. [PM27 at 32]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Dr Wright is recorded as an author within the metadata of this document.
Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on purported work of the type referred to in this document as “foundational” for Bitcoin. [Wright 1 at 53–54]
The effect of the tampering is therefore to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work by Dr Wright on a subject of interest to him, but with reference to Bitcoin), contrary to fact.
In these proceedings (and previously), Dr Wright has claimed that his development of Bitcoin was influenced by work on networks as referred to in at least the references section of this document. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright 1 at 54]
Dr Wright has not disclosed the donor document or intermediate source document from which the content of ID_000396 has been generated.
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

(12) ID_000462 “Defining the possible graph structures” (Reliance Document)

The document purports to be precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper relating to network theory and mentioning “BitCoin”. It is dated to the period 14 July 2007 to 11 October 2008.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document contains inconsistent metadata which, taking into account the listed authors and revision numbers, is not replicable without either direct editing of metadata or switching user accounts on the same computer resulting in the appearance of an author change. [PM32 at 14 and 21d]
The document content has been sourced from a precursor donor file. No such donor file has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM32 at 15–20 and 21c]
The document has an implausible editing time in excess of 455 days. The editing time occupies the entire time between its created and last saved internal metadata timestamps. The document was saved once, or at most twice, during this period. [PM32 at 4–9]
The document editing period overlaps with other similar documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure. [PM32 at 7, 10–11]
The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. [ID_003932, PM32 at 1, PM26 at 25–38]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Dr Wright is recorded as an author in the metadata of this document.
Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. as being a set of personal notes supporting his claim to have developed the Bitcoin system), contrary to fact.
In these proceedings (and previously), Dr Wright has claimed that his development of Bitcoin was influenced by work on networks as referred to in this document. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright 1 at 54]
The document contains “Uni Newcastle” in its “Company” metadata information. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on work done in connection with his MStat at Newcastle University, as part of his claim to have been working on the concepts behind the Bitcoin White Paper. [Wright 1 at 95]
Although the document metadata purports Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright, and later sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email (long after they were separated), contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [ID_003932, PM32 at 1, PM26 at 25–38]
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

Source: CourtListener (page 102)

(13) ID_000465 Email: “I need your help editing a paper I am going to release” (1)

The document purports to be an email from Dr Wright to Dave Kleiman dated 12 March 2008 and referring in the future tense to Dr Wright’s purported authorship of the Bitcoin White Paper.
This document shares content with the similar document referred to in COPA’s Particulars of Claim at paragraphs 28–29.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated and is inauthentic. [PM18 at 54, 57]
In his Defence in these proceedings, in public articles, and subsequently elsewhere, Dr Wright has offered and repeated a false technical explanation for the irregularities within documents connected to ID_000465. Dr Wright’s proffered explanation is unsound. Even if it were accurate, the proffered explanation would not explain all of the irregularities discovered within it. [PM18 at 69 to 72]
The document is part of a series of manipulated emails, all of which carry similar content on their face, but which have been edited by degrees to display different timestamps, and different sender and recipient information [PM18 at 37–40]. The various documents in the set are inconsistent with each other but are consistent with a pattern of editing beginning with an artificial precursor email, and ending with a document which would be deployed as if it was original and authentic, in connection with Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
The email was purportedly sent by Dr Wright from his email address at the domain “rcjbr.org”. The date of the email is purportedly 12 March 2008. By that date however, the rcjbr.org domain name had not yet been registered by Dr Wright. It would not have been possible to send the forwarded email at the time recorded in the email message. [PM18 at 55–57, 84]
ID_000465 thus shares similar technical inconsistencies to ID_000464 as regards being sent from a domain name which was not yet registered to Dr Wright. [PM18 at 41–53]
The transmission header of ID_000465 is identical to that of ID_000464, although the documents have different content. The transmission header contains references to the domain rcjbr.org. The purported dates of those emails pre-date the date of registration of the domain name rcjbr.org, but would be contemporary for 2015. [PM18 at 55 to 57 and 63–67]
The document purports to be a private exchange between Dr Wright and Mr Dave Kleiman. It is among one of several documents (including ID_001318) that Dr Wright purports to have forwarded to Ira Kleiman in apparent support of his claim to be Satoshi.

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. to create an email indicating that he was working on Bitcoin prior to the release of the Bitcoin White Paper), contrary to fact.
In his Defence in these proceedings, in public articles, and subsequently elsewhere, Dr Wright has offered and repeated a false technical explanation for the irregularities within ID_000465. Dr Wright’s proffered explanation is unsound. Even if it were accurate, the proffered explanation would not explain all of the irregularities discovered within it. [PM18 at 69 to 72]
The document is written in the first person from the perspective of Dr Wright.
The document is an email sent by Dr Wright from his personal email address, craig@rcjbr.org.
The document contains content personal to Dr Wright.
In his Defence in these proceedings, Dr Wright claimed to have created the content of this document and maintained its authenticity.
16. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on interactions with Mr Dave Kleiman in relation to his alleged Bitcoin project (including before the release of the Bitcoin White Paper) as part of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 1 at 89]
The document originates from a computer with the name “cwright” and from an IP address of Dr Wright, being the same IP address as is associated with several other documents identified as originating from Dr Wright. [PM18 at 10]
The document is part of a connected pattern of documents that have been edited from one another. Although the sender information changes with each edit, in each case Dr Wright is listed as the sender.

(14) ID_000504 Non Sparse Random Graphs (Reliance Document)

The document purports to be precursor work to Bitcoin. It mentions “the bitcoin network” and purports to describe expectations of how it will operate in the future tense.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. [PM28 at 56]
The document contains internal references to Microsoft schemas which did not yet exist in 2008 but which are contemporary for 2010 and later. [PM28 at 15–19]
ID_000504 records an impossible edit time in excess of 41 days. In percentage terms, the recorded MS Word Edit Time equates to more than 100% of the time difference between the Created and Last Saved dates. This is consistent with the use of clock manipulation techniques. [PM28 at 5–6]
The period of editing this document overlaps with a number of other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure. [PM28 at 9]
The content of the document was sourced from a precursor or donor file [PM28 at 14]. No such file has been disclosed.
The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. [ID_003938, PM28 at 1, PM 26 at 25–38]
Equations and symbols within the document are embedded as picture files and not as native symbols, in a manner consistent with conversion from a less-readily editable precursor source in a different format into an editable format, and not consistent with ordinary drafting or creation. Much of the embedded information could simply have been typed on a keyboard. [PM28 at 10–14, 20–47]
The conversion process is consistent with conversion via Optical Character recognition (such as from PDF) into a DOCX file and then to a DOC file [PM28 at 48, 52–53].

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting precursor work by him in development of Bitcoin), contrary to fact.
The content introduced into the document, having the effect of making it appear to date from earlier than its true date, is phrased in the first person as a note from Dr Wright to himself.
Dr Wright is recorded in the metadata as the first author.
The metadata records “University of Newcastle” as the company from which the document was created. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on work done in connection with his MStat at Newcastle University, as part of his claim to have been working on the concepts behind the Bitcoin White Paper. [Wright 1 at 95]
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright claims to have discussed the concepts behind the Bitcoin White Paper with teaching staff at the University of Newcastle. [Wright 4 at 52]
Dr Wright has not disclosed the precursor documents.
Although the document metadata present Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright after 11 April 2019, and later sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright primarily relies. The metadata of that zip file itself are also irregular. [ID_003938, PM28 at 1, PM 26 at 25–38]
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

(15) ID_000525 “Bond Percolation in Timecoin.doc” (Reliance Document)

The document purports to be precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper dated 19 December 2008.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. The document contains inauthentic metadata timestamps [PM33 at 31–32]. The document contains hidden, embedded Grammarly timestamps indicating its true date to be 16 January 2020 or later. [PM33 at 20–22, 29–32]
The Grammarly software did not exist in 2008 [Madden report at 62c] but is contemporaneous for 2020. [Madden Report at 70–72]
The inconsistency between the metadata in the document and the Grammarly timestamp is probably indicative of the use of computer clock manipulation techniques. [PM2 at 22]
The document has been created by importing content from a donor document. The donor document has not been disclosed. [PM33 at 20–22, 30]
The document contains equations and formulae which have been corrupted in a manner consistent with conversion from a more modern format to an older format. [PM33 at 13–16]
The period between metadata dates of creation and last saved is 525 days, while the MS Word edit time is recorded as just 5 minutes. This “Lynn Wright document” overlaps substantially with the creation of other documents in that category. [PM33 at 4–6, PM24 at 35]
The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. [ID_003931, PM33 at 24–26, PM26 at 25–38]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. as being a set of notes supporting his claim to be working on a “Timecoin” concept in advance of the release of Bitcoin), contrary to fact.
Dr Wright has positively asserted that ID_000525 is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright positively relies upon the presence of the word “Timecoin” in this document, as precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper and thus forming part of the story behind his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 1 26, Wright 4 at 6.c.x.]
Dr Wright shared a document with identical content on social media contemporaneously with the date indicated in the hidden embedded Grammarly timestamp. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the Request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account.
Although the document metadata purports Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright on 16 January 2020, and later sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [ID_003931, PM33 at 24–26, PM26 at 25–38]
Dr Wright is a user of Grammarly software.
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

WizSec Bitcoin Research during Kleiman v Wright trial November 2021

(16) ID_000536 Backdated White Paper PDF (1)

This document purports to be a PDF version of the White Paper with a creation timestamp of 24 January 2008 and a last modification on 21 May 2008. The document contains Dr Wright’s contact details in place of those of Satoshi Nakamoto.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

Rather than being a precursor document to the Bitcoin White Paper as it purports to be, this document has been created from the Bitcoin White Paper subsequently, and edited in such a way that it appears as if it was precursor work. [PM3 at 127–128]
The metadata of this document has been edited in its year and month, so as to appear to date from over a year before the authentic Bitcoin White Paper. However, the timestamps otherwise match those of the authentic White Paper in their day, hour, minutes, and seconds. [PM3 at 91]
Further, the document contains embedded fonts bearing copyright statements from 2017. [PM3 at 100–101]
The document appears to be an edited version of document ID_000538. In particular, information present in ID_000538 (including 2018–2019 date stamps, and a URL contemporaneous to 2019) has apparently been deleted from this version. In the case of the URL, the deleted content has been replaced by a series of blank space characters precisely equivalent in length to the deleted URL. [PM3 at 152–155]
Although ID_000536 purports to be dated from the beginning of 2008, its content matches the March 2009 version of the authentic Bitcoin White Paper. The content does not however match the intervening, authentic drafts of the Bitcoin White Paper dating to October 2008 or November 2008, even though those are closer in time to the purported date of ID_000536. [PM3 at 92]
The document contains “Touchup_textedit” flags indicating that the document text has been edited in Adobe software [PM3 at 95–98].
The effect of the “Touchup_textedit” changes shown on the face of the document (referred to above) includes adding Dr Wright’s name and contact details appear in place of those of Satoshi Nakamoto.
The document contains additional, hidden “Touchup_textedit” flags relating to changes which are not shown on the face of the document. The hidden changes are identical to those observed in ID_003732, suggesting that ID_000536 was created subsequently to the creation of ID_003732. ID_003732 dates from 22 May 2019. On that basis, ID_000536 could not have been created before 22 May 2019. [PM3 at 98–99]
The document contains four conflicting internal metadata streams, recording contradictory timestamps for different events, indicating the use of clock manipulation techniques or bytelevel editing. [PM3 at 104–107]
The document purports to have been authored using XMP Core software that does not exist. The version referenced in the internal metadata is invalid and does not relate to any real-world versions, indicating content manipulation by byte-level editing. [PM3 at 108–114]
The date of the XMP Core version is given as October 2008. If this software were valid, which is denied, it would in any case post-date the purported date of authorship of the document. [PM3 at 115]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (presenting as a predecessor draft of the Bitcoin White Paper and supposedly written by him in early 2008), contrary to fact.
The document bears Dr Wright’s name and contact details.
The contact details included refer to Charles Sturt University. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed to have drafted and shared versions of the Bitcoin White Paper while studying at Charles Sturt University, and to have discussed the concepts with teaching staff at Charles Sturt University. [Wright 1 at 87; Wright 4 at 52]
The document contains metadata that purports to pre-date the Bitcoin White Paper, indicating efforts at backdating to support Dr Wright’s claim.
The document was created in 2019 in a British time zone, consistent with Dr Wright’s location in London in 2019.
Dr Wright is recorded in the metadata as the author of the document.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has stated this to be an authentic document. [Exhibit CSW-5]
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

(17) ID_000537 Backdated White Paper PDF (2)

This document purports to be a PDF version of the White Paper with the same Adobe properties as ID_000536, with a creation timestamp of 24 January 2008 and a last modification on 21 May 2008.
The original filename of this document is given as “SSRN-id3440802.pdf”. This filename is understood by COPA to be related to the document referred to in COPA’s Particulars of Claim at paragraphs 30–35 and in Dr Wright’s Defence at paragraph 52. However, it is not in fact the same document.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

Rather than being a precursor document to the Bitcoin White Paper as it purports to be, this document has been created from the Bitcoin White Paper subsequently, and edited in such a way that it appears as if it was precursor work. [PM3 at 145]
The metadata of this document has been edited in its year and month, so as to appear to date from over a year before the authentic Bitcoin White Paper. However, the timestamps otherwise match in their day, hour, minutes, and seconds. [PM3 at 91]
The document includes a redundant metadata field listing the true creation date of 20090324113315–06'00', which is consistent with the date of the authentic Bitcoin White Paper. It is not consistent with the purported date of the document. [PM3 at 133]
The document contains “Touchup_textedit” flags indicating that the document text has been edited in Adobe software [PM3 at 95–98, 137].
7. The effect of the “Touchup_textedit” changes shown on the face of the document includes adding Dr Wright’s name and contact details appear in place of those of Satoshi Nakamoto.
The document contains additional, hidden “Touchup_textedit” flags relating to changes which are not shown on the face of the document. The hidden changes are identical to those observed in ID_003732, indicating that ID_000537 was created subsequent to the creation of ID_003732. ID_003732 dates from 22 May 2019. On that basis, ID_000537 could not have been created before 22 May 2019. [PM3 at 98–99, 137]
The document purports to have been authored using a version of XMP Core that does not exist. The version referenced in the internal metadata is invalid and does not relate to any real-world versions, indicating content manipulation. [PM3 at 108–114 and 136]
The date of the XMP Core version is given as October 2008. If this format were valid, which is denied, it would in any case post-date the purported date of authorship of the document. [PM3 at 115]
ID_000537 contains a textual error, in that a hyphen is missing in the title. This textual error does not appear in the authentic versions of the Bitcoin White Paper. The same textual error does not appear in other similarly dated documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure. [PM3 at 139–140]
This document is listed as having the same filename as the SSRN document to which COPA (in its Particulars of Claim) and Dr Wright (in his Defence) have both pleaded. However, the document is not the same document, and differs by electronic hash. [PM3 at 140–142]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (presenting as a predecessor draft of the Bitcoin White Paper and supposedly written by him in early 2008), contrary to fact.
The purpose of the tampering was apparently for upload to a public website, SSRN, in order to cause it to appear to the public that Dr Wright is the author of the Bitcoin White Paper, contrary to fact.
COPA’s Particulars of Claim recited several of the indicia of tampering set out above, in respect of a document bearing an identical file name to the original filename of ID_000537. Dr Wright (in his Defence) then admitted that the document in question was not created at the time purported in its metadata, but actually created in 2019. Dr Wright has admitted that he uploaded the document to SSRN and that it was created for this purpose. Dr Wright has thus accepted that these documents are not true versions of the Bitcoin White Paper only after their veracity has been called into question.
Even while admitting the document to have been altered in 2019, Dr Wright declines to admit that the purported 2008 dates stated in its metadata are inauthentic “[p]ending a technical examination of the documents” [Defence at 59]. Following receipt of that technical examination in the form of the Madden Report, Dr Wright has not (to date) altered his position.
In his Defence, Dr Wright has provided an explanation for his creation of this document which is not plausible. [Defence at 53–55]

From Craig Wright’s Defense April 4, 2022

The contact details included refer to Charles Sturt University. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed to have drafted and shared versions of the Bitcoin White Paper while studying at Charles Sturt University, and to have discussed the concepts with teaching staff at Charles Sturt University. [Wright 1 at 87; Wright 4 at 52]
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has stated this to be an authentic document. [Exhibit CSW-5]

(18) ID_000538 Backdated White Paper PDF (3)

This document purports to be a PDF version of the White Paper that by visual comparison matches ID_000536.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document contains metadata irregularities, recording a creation date of 24 March 2009 but showing a recorded modified date of 21 May 2008, indicating the use of clock manipulation techniques. [PM3 at 149–150]
The document contains internal references to various 2018–2019 date stamps, and a URL contemporaneous to 2019. [PM3 at 152–155 and 158–159]
The timestamp for the search URL in the document is less than 1 minute before the last modified timestamp within document ID_003732, a document version of the White Paper also disclosed by Dr Wright. The content of ID_000538 has apparently been edited to create ID_000536. The close proximity in time and content is, in each case, consistent with an apparent chain of edits between false versions of the Bitcoin White Paper disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM3 at 152 to 159 (especially 156)]
The document indicates that it has been created by the use of XMP Core dating from 2008. The version of the format referred to does not exist. It is an edited version of a true XMP Core version dating to 2018. Although some digits in the version number and the year of the date have been altered, the timestamp is otherwise identical in its month, day, hour, minute, and second to the relevant 2018 version. [PM3 at 160–161]
The document contains “Touchup_textedit” flags indicating that the document text has been edited in Adobe software. [PM3 at 95–98, 166]
The effect of the “Touchup_textedit” changes shown on the face of the document includes adding Dr Wright’s name and contact details appear in place of those of Satoshi Nakamoto.
The document contains additional, hidden “Touchup_textedit” flags relating to changes which are not shown on the face of the document. The hidden changes are identical to those observed in ID_003732, indicating that ID_000538 was created subsequent to the creation of ID_003732. ID_003732 dates from 22 May 2019. On that basis, ID_000538 cannot have been created before 22 May 2019. [PM3 at 98–99, 166–167]
Metadata has been edited so as to replace a reference to “Satoshi Nakamoto” with “Craig S. Wright.” (including the trailing full-stop character). That full stop character is grammatically unnecessary. However, it has the technical effect of causing the edited text to occupy the same number of bytes within the document file as the original text, “Satoshi Nakamoto”. [PM3 at 164–165]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The document bears Dr Wright’s name and contact details.
The timestamp for the search URL in the document is less than 1 minute before the last modified timestamp within document ID_003732, a document version of the White Paper also disclosed by Dr Wright. The content of ID_000538 has apparently later been edited to create ID_000536. The close proximity in time and content is, in each case, consistent with an apparent chain of edits between false versions of the Bitcoin White Paper disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM3 at 152 to 159]
The contact details included refer to Charles Sturt University. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed to have drafted and shared versions of the Bitcoin White Paper while studying at Charles Sturt University, and to have discussed the concepts with teaching staff at Charles Sturt University. [Wright 1 at 87; Wright 4 at 52]
The document contains metadata that purports to pre-date the Bitcoin White Paper, indicating efforts at backdating to support Dr Wright’s claim.
Dr Wright is recorded in the metadata as the author of the document.
Dr Wright is recorded in an embedded metadata tags as the author of the document, including a trailing full-stop character indicative of byte-level editing.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has stated this to be an authentic document. [Exhibit CSW-5]
Dr Wright’s name is on the document and he is recorded in the metadata as the author.

(19) ID_000549 “Maths.doc” (Reliance Document)

This document purports to be a set of notes, including various mathematical formulae, making reference to Bitcoin and features of the Bitcoin system.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. [PM34 at 34]
ID_000549 contains hidden, embedded traces of previous edits which do not appear on the face of the document. The hidden, embedded text makes reference to events that took place from 2011 to 2018 as if in the past tense. On the face-value content of the document, the year numbers “2011 to 2018” have been edited to the form “20xx to 20xx” with the effect of obscuring content which would otherwise have been anachronous to the purported date of the document. [PM34 at 19–24]
The hidden, embedded content of previous edits additionally refers to the fork between BTC and BCH, two versions of Bitcoin, an event which took place in 2017. [PM34 at 25–26]
Equations and symbols within the document are embedded as picture files and not as native symbols, in a manner consistent with conversion from a less-readily editable precursor source in a different format into an editable format, and not consistent with ordinary drafting or creation. Much of the embedded information could simply have been typed on a keyboard. [PM34 at 8–10]
Formulae in the document contain placeholder characters and misaligned characters, characteristic of errors introduced during conversion between filetypes. [PM34 at 10.d.]
The document has been created by importing the content of a donor DOCX file created in a later version of MS Word and saved in the older DOC format with an earlier version of MS Word. No donor file has been disclosed. [PM34 at 17, 30–31]
The document has an implausible edit time of 10 days overlapping with other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure with closely correlated characteristics. [PM34 at 4–7, 32]
The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. [ID_003936, PM34 at 1, PM26 at 25–38]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Dr Wright is recorded as an author in the metadata of this document.
Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. as being a set of personal notes supporting his claim to have developed the Bitcoin system), contrary to fact.
In these proceedings (and previously), Dr Wright has claimed that his development of Bitcoin was influenced by work on networks as referred to in this document. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright 1 at 54]
Although the document metadata purports Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright, and later sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [ID_003936, PM34 at 1, PM26 at 25–38]
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

(20) ID_000550 “BitCoin: SEIR-C Propagation models of block and transaction dissemination” (Reliance Document)

The document purports to be precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper dated 12 December 2008.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. It is an altered version of a document actually published by Dr Wright in 2017 (the “2017 SSRN Paper”). [PM1 at 25–38 and 55]
The document contains hidden, embedded Grammarly timestamps indicating its true date to be 15 April 2017 or later. [PM1 at 48–53]
The Grammarly software did not exist in 2008 [Madden Report at 62c] but is contemporaneous for 2017. [Madden Report at 70–72]
ID_000550 contains hidden, embedded traces of the 2017 SSRN paper, indicating that both are derived from a common source document. [PM1 at 25–33]
The content referred to in the hidden, embedded traces of the 2017 SSRN paper includes news articles and government publications which did not yet exist in 2008 but which are contemporaneous for 2017. [PM1 at 19–21 and 55]
The document contains equations and formulae which have been corrupted in a manner consistent with conversion from a more modern format to an older format [PM1 at 34–45]. The document includes tampered content that apparently represents an attempt to explain away this problem as the result of using older equation-editing MathType software. However, analysis indicates that equations in the document were in fact authored with much later version of that software, which did not yet exist in 2008 but which are contemporaneous to 2017. [PM40 at 22–42]
The document contains references to Microsoft schemas which did not yet exist in 2008 but are contemporaneous to 2010 onwards (including 2017). [PM1 at 46–47]
The document includes anachronistic references to events that had not occurred by 2008 but which had occurred by 2017. [PM1 at 21–22]
The internal metadata records an anomalous edit time in excess of 70 days and the editing period of this document overlaps with several other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure, consistent with being created using clock manipulation techniques.

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting academic work done by Dr Wright in his supposed development of Bitcoin), contrary to fact.
Dr Wright has positively asserted that ID_000550 is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
Dr Wright is recorded as an author of the metadata. The doctored content is phrased by Dr Wright in the first person: “Note- I have released online as an anonymous programmer using the pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto”.
Dr Wright is a user of Grammarly software.
ID_000550 contains hidden text embedded within the document which contradicts the information presented on the face of the document, a characteristic of manipulation of a series of MS Word .DOC files found throughout Dr Wright’s disclosure in these proceedings.
The 2017 SSRN Paper is a version of the same document that was published on the SSRN website by Dr Wright himself, bearing a “date written” of 28 March 2017. The “date written” is contemporaneous with the hidden Grammarly timestamp in ID_000550 and not to the purported date of the document.
The metadata of the 2017 SSRN Paper lists “craig” as the creator of the document.
ID_000550 contains hidden, embedded traces of the 2017 SSRN paper, indicating that both are derived from a common source document.
Dr Wright has not disclosed the 2017 SSRN paper or the common source document.
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

(21) ID_000551 “The study of Complex networks” (Reliance Document)

The document purports to be precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper relating to network theory and mentioning “bitcoin”. It is dated to the period 15 August 2008 to 21 December 2008.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. [PM35 at 28]
Significant portions of the content of the document were apparently copied from a textbook source available online (“Hofstad”). The Hofstad source from which the similar content originates cannot have dated from before 2014. The similar content originates from a version of the Hofstad source dating from 2016 or later. [PM35 at 15–28]
ID_000551 contains blank space where a formula is intended. The formula is present in the Hofstad source. [PM35 at 20 and 21a]
Various characteristics of the document indicate that its content was first created in an intervening donor document and imported into ID_000551, saved as a less modern format. No intervening donor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM35 at 6–14]
The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. The metadata of that zip file is also irregular. [PM26 at 1, 25–38]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on purported work of the type referred to in this document as “foundational” for Bitcoin. [Wright 1 at 53–54]
The effect of the tampering is therefore to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work by Dr Wright on a subject of interest to him, but with reference to Bitcoin), contrary to fact.
In these proceedings (and previously), Dr Wright has claimed that his development of Bitcoin was influenced by work on networks as covered by this document. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright 1 at 54]
Although the document metadata presents Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright after 18 August 2019, and a copy of a similar document later sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email (long after they were separated), contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [ID_003936, PM35 at 1, PM26 at 25–38]
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

Image from the KPMG forensic report (hodlonaut v Wright, Norway 2022)

(22) ID_000554 Converted Code2Flow source code flowchart (Reliance Document)

The document is described by Dr Wright as maps of the Bitcoin source code. The document contains a date on its face of 9 June 2008, which is before the release of the Bitcoin White Paper or the Bitcoin Software by Satoshi Nakamoto.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document is a monochrome (pure black and white) picture file, in a format and encoding consistent with a fax transmission or low-quality scan of a physical document. However, the document has been electronically created by conversion from a PDF. [PM10 at 5–9]
ID_000554 has its origin in a PDF document, ID_000375. [PM10 at 10–21]
The document has been backdated. [PM10 at 74]
ID_00375, (the original document from which ID_000554 was created), reveals that the specific parts of the text required to support Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi (title and year of creation) are encoded within the PDF metadata differently to the other parts of the text (page number, day, and month), consistent with having been added at a different time by different means [PM10 at 24–31]. This indication of tampering has been removed from Dr Wright’s Reliance Document ID_000554 by the process of conversion to a low-quality picture file.
The internal, raw metadata content of ID_000375 contains embedded fonts bearing copyright statements dating them to 2015 or later. [PM10 at 34]
The internal metadata of ID_000375 contains hidden embedded metadata streams indicating that the original title of the file was “code2flow — online interactive code to flowchart converter” which was edited to read “bitcoin main.h”. [PM10 at 36, 41]
The online Code2Flow software used to create these flowcharts did not exist in 2008 but was created at some time after 2012. [PM10 at 42–47]
The PDF document ID_000375 (the origin document for ID_000554) was created with XMP Core software which did not exist in 2008, and which dates the document to February 2016 or later. [PM10 at 39]
ID_000375 (the origin document for ID_000554) was created with a PDF Producer software “Acrobat Distiller 15.0 for Windows” which did not exist in 2008 but which date to November 2015 or later. [PM10 at 48–54]
The above indications of tampering were removed from Dr Wright’s Reliance Document ID_00554 by means of converting it to a low-quality picture file.
The content of the manipulation and the origination of the timestamps in question is consistent with the use of clock manipulation. [PM10 at 71–74]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. a map of the Bitcoin source code supposedly prepared in June 2008 and in the possession of Dr Wright), contrary to fact.
Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
Dr Wright has chosen to rely in these proceedings on this document, which is stripped of relevant metadata by reason of its creation process. Dr Wright has chosen not to rely on the equivalent PDF digital document which is the apparent predecessor, which contains clearer details and which contains both relevant metadata and reveals indicia of tampering.
ID_000554, Dr Wright’s Reliance Document, contains no legible text or colour, and is blurred by conversion, rendering it impossible to relate to the underlying PDF by text searching or other means other than by visual comparison and subsequent corroboration. [PM10 at 10–13]
Dr Wright (craig.wright) is recorded as the author in the metadata of the document from which ID_000554 was created.
Although other documents in Dr Wright’s disclosure bear similar hallmarks to ID_000554 (including ID_000553, another Reliance Document), Dr Wright has not disclosed their equivalent underlying PDFs.
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

(23) ID_000568 “BITCOIN notes vs commodity” (Reliance Document)

The document purports to be precursor work to the Bitcoin White Paper relating to economic theory and law, and mentioning “BITCOIN” in its title. It is dated to 8 September 2008.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. [PM36 at 27]
The document contains internal references to Microsoft schemas which did not yet exist in 2008 but which are contemporary for 2010, 2012 and later. [PM36 at 12, 21, 26.d.]
The document contains embedded references to fonts including Calibri Light and Nirmala UI [PM36 at 18–20, 26.e.]. Those fonts were not yet published in 2008 [Madden Report at 165]. Further, the designers of those fonts have given evidence relied on by COPA in these proceedings that the fonts were not yet conceived of or designed by the purported date of this document.
The document was created by importing donor content from a pre-existing file. No donor file has however been disclosed. [PM36 at 17 and 26.f]
The document was created and last saved immediately before ID_000569, another “Lynn Wright document” bearing independent indicia of tampering. [PM37 at 17]
An identical document, ID_000570, has also been disclosed but records an impossible edit time which is 90 minutes longer than the entire time between its created and last saved date. [PM36 at 26.b.]
The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. [ID_003928, PM 36 at 1, PM26 at 25–38]
ID_000367 has an implausible edit time in excess of 21 days. During that time it was saved only once, implying that it was left unsaved for 61,676 minutes before being saved. [PM36 at 4–5]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. purporting to be notes relating to Bitcoin, before the publication of the Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto, and indicative of work developing the Bitcoin system), contrary to fact.
In these proceedings (and previously), Dr Wright has claimed that his development of Bitcoin was influenced by interest in law and economic theory as covered by this document. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright 1 at 6, 22, 58, 66]
Although the document metadata presents Lynn Wright to have been the only author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright after February 2013, and sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [ID_003928, PM 36 at 1, PM26 at 25–38]
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

(24) ID_000569 “Bitcoin (law)” (Reliance Document)

The document presents as notes relating to “Bitcoin (law)”. It contains less than 1 page of text but is dated to 23 October 2008 (i.e. before the publication of the Bitcoin White Paper by Satoshi Nakamoto).

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. [PM37 at 30]
The document contains embedded references to the font Calibri Light, a font which was not yet published in 2008 [PM37 at 15–16], [PM25 at 20], [Madden Report at 165]. Further, the designer of that font has given evidence relied on by COPA in these proceedings that the font was not yet conceived of or designed by the purported date of this document.
The content of the document was imported from a donor document. However, no donor document was disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM37 at 4–14]
The document was created and last saved immediately after ID_000568, another “Lynn Wright document” bearing independent indicia of tampering. [PM37 at 17]
The likely donor source was a blog post titled “Bitcoin in Law”, published by Dr Wright on 18 December 2018 (the “Bitcoin Law blog post”). The Bitcoin Law blog post was not disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM37 at 17–23, 32]
Comparison between the Bitcoin Law blog post and ID_000569 indicates that content that existed in the Bitcoin Law blog post has been altered in ID_000569 [PM37 at 23]. The altered content would have been anachronistic in 2008.
The document was emailed from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright on 18 January 2020. The email contains several manipulated documents purported to be in the custody of Lynn Wright. The metadata of that zip file is also irregular. [ID_003929, PM37 at 1, PM26 at 25–38]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

9. Dr Wright has positively asserted in these proceedings that ID_000199 is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. by presenting as a document showing precursor work on Bitcoin and a link between Dr Wright’s legal studies and his purported development of Bitcoin, which is a common theme in his evidence), contrary to fact.
In these proceedings (and previously), Dr Wright has claimed that his development of Bitcoin was influenced by interest in law and economic theory as covered by this document. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright 1 at 6, 22, 58, 66]
The Bitcoin Law blog post was published by Dr Wright on his own blog on 18 December 2018.
Although the document metadata presents Lynn Wright to have been an author, it was actually created by Dr Wright in the name of Lynn Wright, and a copy sent from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright by email long after they were separated, contained in a zip file along with many other files bearing evidence of backdating and tampering including several documents on which Dr Wright relies. The metadata of that zip file is itself also irregular. [ID_003929, PM37 at 1, PM26 at 25–38]
Dr Wright shared a document with identical content on social media, contemporaneously with the aforesaid email to Lynn Wright. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account.
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

(25) ID_000739 bitcoin.exe — hex-edited

The document purports to be a copy of bitcoin.exe, the Windows executable bitcoin software. Its purported date is 4 January 2009, i.e. before Satoshi Nakamoto released the Bitcoin software. Within its “About Bitcoin” dialog, the software displays the purported version “Version 0.0.8 Alpha” and the purported authorship information “Copyright © 2008 Dr. Craig Wright.”

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. [PM12 at 49–50]
The document has been edited to cause changes to the text displayed within the “About Bitcoin” dialog box. The authentic “About Bitcoin” dialog box lists Satoshi Nakamoto as the author and copyright holder of the software. ID_000739 instead lists “Dr. Craig Wright” as the author and copyright holder of the software. [PM12 at 20a-b]
The document has been edited to cause changes to text relating to example bitcoin addresses and IP addresses shown within the software. [PM12 at 12]
The document is purportedly from 4 January 2009, but contains an internal embedded timestamp indicating that it is based on software that was compiled on 10 January 2010. [PM12 at 45–48]
Other than differences in human-readable text, the content of the document is otherwise identical to the authentic bitcoin.exe v0.1.1 released by Satoshi Nakamoto. [PM12 at 10–12]
The authentic bitcoin.exe v0.1.1 contains an internal checksum which validates that its content has not been altered. Such checksums are unique to the content of the file that bears them. The checksum of the authentic bitcoin v0.1.1 is valid. However, although ID_000739 (purported v0.0.8) contains different content, its internal checksum is a copy of the checksum for the authentic bitcoin.exe v0.1.0. In the case of ID_000739, the checksum is invalid: the calculated checksum for the file does not match the static stored checksum within it. The integrity of the file has been compromised after it was compiled into EXE format. [PM12 at 33 to 44 and 50]
The changes are consistent with hex-editing of a binary file by hand, in particular by editing solely bytes representing strings of text content (and not bytes which involved the binary operation of the software code itself), and by replacing previous text content with new text content of precisely the same length. [PM12 at 13, 24–26]
No source code file has been disclosed which corresponds to the purported ‘version 0.0.8’. Certain source code files have been disclosed which purport to be contemporaneous to ID_000739, but which match only approximately and do not match exactly in their relevant textual content. [PM12 at 28 to 32]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The document bears Dr Wright’s name.
Dr Wright has relied on this document as evidence in previous litigation.
The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. by presenting as a document showing Dr Wright’s authorship and/or ownership of copyright in the bitcoin.exe software prior to the date of release of the authentic software by Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact.
Dr Wright has disclosed two other related documents in these proceedings, being screenshots corresponding to the text displayed in the “About Bitcoin” dialog box (similar to those depicted in Appendix PM12 at 20a-b). ID_003948 is a photograph sent on WhatsApp with a date of 20 January 2020, displaying the authentic information corresponding to the authentic v0.1.1 software. ID_003951 is a photograph sent on WhatsApp with a date of 21 January 2020, one day later, displaying the inauthentic text corresponding to that of ID_000739 [Exhibit PM15.1]. COPA infers that Dr Wright created ID_000739 on 20 January 2020.
Dr Wright has not disclosed any WhatsApp chats relating to the files ID_003948 or ID_003951.
Following receipt of the Madden Report, Dr Wright has responded to a request to identify all copies of the Bitcoin software by list. ID_000739 (and all duplicates of it) have been omitted from Dr Wright’s list. Dr Wright has thus accepted that these documents are not true versions of the Bitcoin software only once their veracity has been called into question. [Wright 4 at 46]
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

(26) ID_000848 Altered ‘debug.log’ text file

The document purports to be a debug.log file generated by the operation of bitcoin software. The purported document date is 10 January 2009.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. [PM11 at 45]
The document has been disclosed with irregular metadata characteristics including a “created” date of 19 November 2015. [PM11 at 8, 22–26]
The content of the document is almost identical to the content of another document, ID_000840, but with edits resulting in changes including “WrightC” being added as the username of the account operating the software purportedly being logged. [PM11 at 12]
The document purports to log a failed connection attempt to an Internet Relay Chat server. It logs the use of a certain nickname to connect to that chat server. However, the logged error message refers to a similar but different username. The log is therefore internally inconsistent. [PM11 at 39–40]
The document purports to log failed attempts to connect to an IP address associated with the service “WhatIsMyIP.com” [PM11 at 27]. WhatIsMyIP.com was used by the authentic bitcoin software, and the authentic bitcoin software generates logs of this kind [PM12 at 14, 22–23]. The document ID_000848 records an error accessing the IP address for WhatIsMyIP.com. WhatIsMyIP.com was active in at least the period 2000–2011, but was inactive by 2013. [PM11 at 27–35]. The logged errors are therefore consistent with the logs being created on 19 November 2015 before being backdated.

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The document bears Dr Wright’s name.
Dr Wright has relied on this document as evidence in previous litigation.
The document refers to a purported Internet Relay Chat server under the name of “ozemail.freenode.net”. Dr Wright has claimed on social media that he used to manage an IRC server under the name OzEmail. Dr Wright made this claim in connection with claiming it to be related to “an error message from the original bitcoin”. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the Request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account.
The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. by inserting Dr Wright’s name into the log, as the purported user of bitcoin software on 10 January 2009), contrary to fact.
Dr Wright has disclosed other similar documents in these proceedings, including ID_000840 from which ID_000848 appears to have been created.
In his first witness statement in these proceedings, Dr Wright lists this document as a document to which he has been referred when preparing his evidence.

(27) ID_001317 Purported email from Dr Wright to David Kleiman

The document is an email chain between Dr Wright and Ira Kleiman, forwarding what purports to be an email from Dr Wright to Dave Kleiman, stating “I cannot do the Satoshi bit anymore”. The purported email to Dave Kleiman is dated 10 September 2011.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. [PM18 at 94]
The document is similar to a set of emails, including ID_001318, being a series of manipulated emails all of which carry similar content on their face, but which have been edited by degrees to display different timestamps, and different sender and recipient information [PM18 at 37–40]. The documents in the set are inconsistent with each other but are consistent with a pattern of editing beginning with an artificial precursor email and ending with a document which would be deployed as if it was original and authentic, in connection with Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
The transmission header of the email contains a hidden, embedded timestamp indicating that a message earlier in the chain was sent on 1 March 2014, which contradicts the date of the purported forwarded content of the email (10 September 2011). [PM18 at 93]
The date embedded within the transmission header of the email (1 March 2014) refers to a conversation that purports to have taken place with Mr Dave Kleiman. However, Mr Dave Kleiman died on 26 April 2013 (and Dr Wright knew of his death well before March 2014). Thus, he cannot have been party to any email correspondence sent to Dr Wright on 1 March 2014.

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. as an email to an associate indicating that Dr Wright had been using the Satoshi persona, supposedly well before Dr Wright made a public claim to be Satoshi), contrary to fact.
The document is written in the first person from the perspective of Dr Wright.
The document is an email sent by Dr Wright from his personal email address, craig@rcjbr.org.
The document contains content personal to Dr Wright.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on interactions with Mr Dave Kleiman (both before and after the release of the Bitcoin White Paper) as part of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 1 at 89]
The document originates from a computer with the name “cwright” and from an IP address of Dr Wright, being the same IP address as is associated with several other documents identified as originating from Dr Wright. [PM18 at 10]
The document is part of a connected pattern of documents that have been edited from one another. Although the sender information changes with each edit, in each case Dr Wright is listed as the sender.

Source: CourtListener

(28) ID_001318 Email: “I need your help editing a paper I am going to release” (2)

The document is an email chain between Dr Wright and Ira Kleiman, forwarding what purports to be an email from Dr Wright to Dave Kleiman dated 12 March 2008 and referring in the future tense to Dr Wright’s purported authorship of the Bitcoin White Paper.
This document shares the same content as the document referred to in COPA’s Particulars of Claim at paragraphs 28–29.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated and is inauthentic. [PM18 at 54, 57]
The document is part of a series of manipulated emails all of which carry similar content on their face, but which have been edited by degrees to display different timestamps, and different sender and recipient information [PM18 at 37–40]. The documents in the set are inconsistent with each other but are consistent with a pattern of editing beginning with an artificial precursor email and ending with a document which would be deployed as if it was original and authentic, in connection with Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
The forwarded email within the chain was purportedly sent by Dr Wright from his email address craig.wright@information-defense.com. The date of that forwarded content is purportedly 12 March 2008. By that date however, the information-defense.com domain name had not yet been registered. It would not have been possible to send the forwarded email at the time recorded in the email message. [PM18 at 41–54, 84]
Other documents in the set from which ID_001318 was created purport to have been sent from Dr Wright’s personal domain name via his email address craig@rcjbr.org. The purported dates of those emails pre-date the date of registration of the domain name rcjbr.org. [PM18 at 55 to 57]
The document is an email sent to Ira Kleiman, prior to Dr Wright’s litigation against Ira Kleiman. The document purports to forward private exchanges between Dr Wright and Dave Kleiman (from another email address of Dr Wright). It is one of several documents (including ID_001318) that Dr Wright forwarded to Ira Kleiman in apparent support of his claim to be Satoshi.
None of the original emails purportedly being forwarded by Dr Wright under cover of ID_001318 (and the connected documents from which it was derived) was disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM18 at 59]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. to create an email indicating that he was working on Bitcoin prior to the release of the Bitcoin White Paper), contrary to fact.
The document is written in the first person from the perspective of Dr Wright.
The document is an email sent by Dr Wright from his personal email address, craig@rcjbr.org.
The document contains content personal to Dr Wright.
In his Defence in these proceedings, Dr Wright claimed to have created the content of this document and maintained its authenticity.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on interactions with Mr Dave Kleiman in relation to his alleged Bitcoin project (including before the release of the Bitcoin White Paper) as part of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 1 at 89]
The document originates from a computer with the name “cwright” and from an IP address of Dr Wright, being the same IP address as is associated with several other documents identified as originating from Dr Wright. [PM18 at 10]
The document is part of a connected pattern of documents that have been edited from one another. Although the sender information changes with each edit, in each case Dr Wright is listed as the sender.

Image from “Craig Wright And The BlackNet Lie”

(29) ID_001379 “Project BlackNet” paper (Reliance Document)

This document purports to be a copy of a “Project BlackNet” research paper dated on its face to 3 October 2002. The documents contains references to a “Stage 4 — Release Phase” and other textual amendments, referring to “Digital Cash”, as well as other features of purported relevance to Bitcoin.
This document shares content with the similar document referred to in COPA’s Particulars of Claim at paragraphs 26–27.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated [PM8 at 60–61]. The document is dated on its face to 3 October 2002. However, the internal metadata for the document indicate that it was actually created on 17 February 2014. [PM8 at 15]
The document is an edited version on an earlier document, into which passages of text have been inserted using text from the Bitcoin White Paper. [PM8 at 23–33, 60.b.]
The document is apparently part of a series of documents, all of which carry similar content on their face, but which have been edited or are converted versions of the same file [PM8 at 3]. Some of those documents are consistent with a pattern of editing beginning with an earlier precursor document, and ending with a document which would be deployed as if it was original and authentic, in connection with Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. See in particular Mr Madden’s discussion of ID_001016 as another backdated document in the sequence [PM8 at 34–50].
The metadata indicates that the file was created using Microsoft Word 2013 as the PDF Producer. Microsoft Word 2013 was not yet published in 2002 (the date on the face of the document) but is contemporaneous for 2014. [PM8 at 15]
The document was created in PDF form by printing to PDF from an underlying precursor DOC or .DOCX document on 17 February 2014 [PM8 at 16]. No such underlying precursor document has been disclosed by Dr Wright.

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Dr Wright is listed in the metadata as the author of the document.
Dr Wright is listed on the face of the document as its first author.
Dr Wright is listed as the sole author in the ‘version control’ section of the document on page 2.
The document contains Dr Wright’s address and telephone number.
Dr Wright has positively asserted in these proceedings that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done by him in 2002, elements of which then appeared in the Bitcoin White Paper), contrary to fact.
Dr Wright has posted screenshots of this document or a very similar document on Twitter, apparently in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed this to be a document related to the later Bitcoin White Paper and that it is original to the purported date on its face, contrary to fact. [Exhibit CSW 14]
Dr Wright has relied on this document, or documents with similar content, in previous proceedings and in public in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
The metadata records “DeMorgan” as the company from which the document was created. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on his work on various projects from his time at DeMorgan, as part of his claim to have been working on the concepts behind the Bitcoin White Paper. [Wright 1 at 32–47]
The document was created in the time zone UTC+11, consistent with Dr Wright’s location in Australia in February 2014, being the date of creation of the document. [PM8 at 18]
In his Defence in these proceedings, in public social media posts, and elsewhere, Dr Wright has repeatedly stated that the series of research papers (to which this document belongs) are related to the Bitcoin White Paper, and that later applications (submitted in 2009/2010) contained the abstract of the Bitcoin White Paper.

(30) ID_001386 “Requested attached” Email

The document purports to be a PDF printout of an email from Mr Dave Kleiman to Dr Wright dated 17 October 2014.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. [PM4 at 114]
The document has been manipulated to alter the content on its face. [PM4 at 111]
The internal metadata of the file indicates that the email was originally sent from Dr Wright “craig@panopticrypt.com” to himself “craig@panopticrypt.com”. [PM14 at 8–9]
The document is a PDF printout of an email. The internal and external metadata suggest that the PDF was created several years before the purported date of the email printed out within it (7–12 July 2011, as opposed to 17 October 2014). [PM4 at 109–114, PM14 at 11–12]
The “from” address in the supposed email has been edited by direct editing of the PDF copy. The internal metadata of the file contains “Touchup_textedit” flags indicating that the sender identity “Dave Kleiman” was added by editing. [PM4 at 112, PM14 at 5]
The document contains several internally contradictory timestamps. [PM14 at 11–12]
The document was created using XMP Core software from 2012 and Microsoft Outlook software from 2013. These were not available at the date of the PDF. [PM14 at 13]
Both features indicate use of either hex-editing techniques or backdating of the computer clock. [PM14 at 14–15]
The document contains embedded fonts carrying a copyright statement dated to 2014, which is inconsistent with the purported date of the document. [PM14 at 16]
This email contains an attachment called “Tulip Trust.pdf”. Dr Wright has admitted that this document was created by him in the name of Mr Dave Kleiman.

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Dr Wright is the purported recipient of the document.
The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (by supporting his narrative of creating and using the Tulip Trust to store assets), contrary to fact.
The document is a manipulated version of an email originally sent from Dr Wright to himself. [PM14 at 8–9]
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on interactions with Mr Dave Kleiman (both before and after release of the Bitcoin White Paper) as part of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 1 at 89]
The document records that it was sent from Dr Wright’s personal email address.
Dr Wright has included an additional 36 documents in his disclosure that appear to relate to this document in various ways. [PM14 at 7]
Dr Wright has relied in other proceedings on the purported existence of the Tulip Trust and his ownership of associated bitcoin, a claim intrinsically linked with his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

This is the original invoice. Read below how Craig Wright altered this invoice.

(31) ID_001421 Touchup_Textedit — purchase invoice for Tulip Trading Limited

The document purports to be an invoice from Abacus Seychelles relating to “Management and trust accounting Seychelles company” dated 17 October 2014.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document contains “Touchup_textedit” flags indicating that the document text has been edited in Adobe software. [PM4 at 1–17]
Alterations have been made to the narrative of the invoice. The text “Management and trust accounting” is inauthentic. [PM4 at 118–119]
The original text of the invoice referred to “Purchase of Seychelles 2011 shelf company”. [PM4 at 120–121]
The text was edited from the original document, ID_001397. The document ID_01421 has been created by taking a copy of ID_001397 and altering the content such that it makes reference to a different product or service. [PM4 at 120–121, PM14 at 54]
The document ID_001421 contains two different unique identifiers embedded in its internal metadata. The presence of two different such unique identifiers is a characteristic of editing a PDF. The original document ID_001397 does not display this characteristic. [PM14 at 45–46]
The narrative text on the face of ID_001421 has been input in two sections, using alternate PDF formatting, consistent with later editing. [PM14 at 48]
The document was originally created on 17 October 2014 in a time zone consistent with the Seychelles. The document was edited on 18 October 2014 in a time zone consistent with Australia. [PM14 at 49–51]
The original invoice from which this document was created was emailed to Dr Wright within document ID_001396, as an email attachment, before being edited. Dr Wright received it at his
email address craig.wright@hotwirepe.com. The email that Dr Wright received has been disclosed in these proceedings. [PM14 at 52–55]
The subject line of the email to which the document was attached was “RE: Aged Shelf Company”. The subject line corresponds with the previous original content of this invoice. The subject line does not correspond with the edited content of the invoice.

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The invoice is made out to Dr Wright.
The effect of the tampering is to appear supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto and the related claims he made (in other litigation) to be the beneficial owner of large quantities of Bitcoin through a trust (i.e. giving the appearance of Dr Wright having owned large quantities of bitcoin since before 2012, consistently with his claim to have mined bitcoin as Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on his purported mining operations in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 1 at 115–121]
The original document from which ID_001421 was created was also in Dr Wright’s custody and control and was disclosed in these proceedings. [PM4 at 120–121]
The original invoice from which this document was created was emailed to Dr Wright within document ID_001396, as an email attachment before being edited. Dr Wright received it at his
email address craig.wright@hotwirepe.com. The email that Dr Wright received has been disclosed in these proceedings. [PM14 at 52–55].
The email ID_001396 was sent by Denis Makaya. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has relied on interactions with Denis Makaya in connection with his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 1 at 57, 142]
The subject line of the ID_001396 email (to which the original invoice was attached) was “RE: Aged Shelf Company”. The subject line corresponds with the previous original content of this invoice. The subject line does not correspond with the edited content of the invoice.
The email ID_001396 contains a thread of messages between Dr Wright and Abacus Seychelles discussing the purchase of a shelf company in which Dr Wright instructed and agreed to purchase the shelf company in question as an ‘aged shelf company’.
The edit took place shortly after Dr Wright’s receipt of the email. The original document was created and emailed to Dr Wright on 17 October 2014 by Abacus Seychelles. The document was subsequently edited on 18 October 2014.
The content of the email ID_001396 records that Dr Wright replied to the message prior to the edit taking place. [PM14 at 52]
The time zone recorded in relation to the document editing is consistent with Dr Wright’s location in Australia, whereas the original document is consistent with being created in the Seychelles and not tampered with.

(32) ID_001541 Touchup_Textedit — purported email from Dave Kleiman

The document purports to be a PDF printout of an email from Mr Dave Kleiman to Dr Wright dated 10 December 2012.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. [PM4 at 78–83]
The document contains “Touchup_textedit” flags indicating that the document text has been edited in Adobe software. [PM4 at 1–17]
The document has been altered twice. [PM4 at 81]
The first edit resulted in hidden internal content which does not appear on its face. That hidden internal content corresponds to the addition of an email header to the document, created from an email sent from Craig S Wright to himself, Craig S Wright, on 26 March 2014. The original of that document has not been disclosed. [PM4 at 79–81]
The header text was later edited again, such that it appears to be an email sent from Mr Dave Kleiman to Craig S Wright on 10 December 2012. [PM4 at 81–83]
The metadata of the document indicates that it was created and last modified in March 2014. The metadata is thus contemporary to the date recorded in the hidden internal content which does not display on the face of the document. The metadata is not consistent with the content on the face of the document. [PM4 at 83]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The document is addressed to Dr Wright’s email address.
The document is addressed to “Craig” in its content.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on interactions with Mr Dave Kleiman (both before and after the release of the Bitcoin White Paper) as part of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 1 at 89]
The effect of the tampering is to appear supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto and the related claims he made (in other litigation) to be the beneficial owner of large quantities of Bitcoin through a trust (i.e. giving the appearance of Dr Wright having owned large quantities of bitcoin since before 2012, consistently with his claim to have mined bitcoin as Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on his purported mining operations in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 1 at 115–121]
The internal hidden content of the document records content sourced from an email sent by Craig S Wright to himself, Craig S Wright, on 26 March 2014.
The date embedded within the hidden content of the document is 26 March 2014. However, Mr Dave Kleiman died on 26 April 2013 (and Dr Wright knew of his death well before March 2014).

This is not the January 2014 spoofed email discussed below. But it gives a good idea, as the exact same trick has been performed by Craig Wright in his effort to pretend he controls a Satoshi email address.

(33) ID_001546 Spoofed email from Dr Wright in the name of Satoshi Nakamoto (1)

The document presents as an email sent in January 2014 from Satoshi Nakamoto to Dr Wright’s collaborator (Uyen Nguyen), as if the writer was in fact Dr Wright making use of the email address satoshi@vistomail.com.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document is an inauthentic, spoofed email. [PM21 at 32–34, 93]
The email was not sent from the account recorded as the sender. [PM21 at 94]
The email was not sent from a permitted source and did not authenticate with the purported Vistomail origin server. [PM21 at 20–34]
Email replies to this message would have been directed to Dr Wright at his email address craig.wright@hotwirepe.com. [PM21 at 9–13]
The document originates from a computer with the name “cwright” and from an IP address of Dr Wright, being the same IP address as is associated with several other documents identified as originating from Dr Wright. [PM21 at 14–18]
The document was recorded in its transmission header as being “for craig@rcjbr.org” and “Delivered to craig@rcjbr.org”. It was not retrieved from the mailbox of Satoshi Nakamoto, but a received item from within Dr Wright’s personal email inbox consistent with him being included as a blind copy (BCC) recipient. [PM21 at 18–19]
No equivalent sent item has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM21 at 35]
This email is not authentically from the controller of the email account “satoshi@vistomail.com”. [PM21 at 34]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. as suggesting that he was using a Satoshi vistomail account in 2014), contrary to fact.
The document is an email sent in Dr Wright’s style of language using Dr Wright’s personal and hotwirepe email addresses.
The document is an email sent to a collaborator of Dr Wright.
The text of the document discourages its recipient from showing the content of the email to others.
The document was recorded in its transmission header as being “for craig@rcjbr.org” and “Delivered to craig@rcjbr.org”. It was not retrieved from the mailbox of Satoshi Nakamoto, but a received item from within Dr Wright’s personal email inbox consistent with him being included as a blind copy (BCC) recipient. [PM21 at 18–19]
No equivalent sent item has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM21 at 35]

(34) ID_001919 “Company and Trust memo”

The document purports to be a “Company and Trust memo” dated 23 July 2011 recording that Mr Dave Kleiman had transferred control of over 1 million Bitcoin to the company Tulip Trading Ltd.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. [PM14 at 102]
The document bears a date of 23 July 2011 on its face. The metadata of the document indicates that it was created on 23 November 2015. [PM14 at 99–100]
The document is a PDF file created by printing a DOCX file, signing the print-out, and scanning the signed page. The DOCX file from which it was printed, ID_001904, was created on 23 November 2015. [PM14 at 95–96]
The document refers to a transfer of Bitcoin to “Tulip Trading Ltd”. Tulip Trading Ltd was not owned by Dr Wright in 2011. It was purchased by Dr Wright in 2014 as an ‘aged shelf company’. It would not have been possible for Dr Wright to take minutes referring to corporate activities concerning Tulip Trading Ltd in July 2011.
The document also refers to a transfer of software to “Wright International Ltd”. This is understood to be a reference to Wright International Investments Ltd. Wright International Investments Ltd was not owned by Dr Wright in 2011. It was purchased by Dr Wright in 2014 as an ‘aged shelf company’. It would not have been possible for Dr Wright to take minutes referring to corporate activities concerning Wright International Investments Ltd in July 2011.
The date on which the document was typed and scanned was 23 November 2015 [PM14 at 101]. Although it refers to a discussion that is purported to have taken place with Mr Dave Kleiman, Mr Dave Kleiman died on 26 April 2013 (and Dr Wright knew of his death well before November 2015). Thus, he cannot have been party to any discussion with Dr Wright on that date.

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The document bears Dr Wright’s handwritten signature.
The document was typed in the form of a DOCX file registering “Craig S Wright” as its author, in its internal metadata.
The effect of the tampering is to make it appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. that Dr Wright was carrying out ‘electronic currency research’ before 23 July 2011, and that Dr Wright had been in possession of large quantities of Bitcoin prior to June 2011, consistently with his claim to have mined bitcoin as Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on interactions with Mr Dave Kleiman in relation to his alleged Bitcoin project (both before and after the release of the Bitcoin White Paper) as part of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 1 at 89]
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on his purported mining operations in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 1 at 115–121]
The document refers to the transfer of “gaming software” from Dr Wright. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on e.g. “software I had developed in collaboration with Global Gaming Services” [Wright 1 at 43] and other claimed software development in the gaming and gambling sector, in connection with his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
Three versions of the scanned document have been disclosed by Dr Wright. All three bear dates of creation of 23–24 November 2015. [PM4 at 99–101]

(35) ID_001925 Declaration of Trust

The document purports to be a declaration of trust dated 21 July 2011 relating to Tulip Trading Ltd.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. [PM14 at 147]
The document contains internal metadata recording an “editedScannedDoc” action indicating that it was first scanned from hard copy and then digitally edited. The edit took place on 24
November 2015. [PM14 at 132–133 and 135]
Dr Wright sent this document as an attachment to an email later on the same date the edit took place, 24 November 2015. [PM14 at 108]
The document contains graphical artefacts indicating that it has been edited by replacing text in the document after it was scanned and converted to editable form. The graphical artefacts are invisible or nearly invisible in standard conditions and can be made out only when the contrast of the document is increased. [PM14 at 117–133]
The document is apparently an edited form of ID_001530. The created date of ID_00001530 is 23 October 2014. The document ID_001925 contains two different unique identifiers embedded in its internal metadata. The presence of two different such unique identifiers is a characteristic of editing a PDF. The document from which it was apparently created, ID_001530, does not display this characteristic. [PM14 at 137–143]
Dr Wright has disclosed what appears to be an intermediate document within the same chain of editing. ID_001323 is a PDF created from a DOC file. The date of ID_001323 is 8 November 2014. The author of ID_001323 is given in its internal metadata as ‘craig.wright’. [PM14 at 144–146]
The document refers to a trust declared in the name of “Tulip Trading Ltd”. Tulip Trading Ltd was not owned by Dr Wright in 2011. It was purchased by Dr Wright in 2014 as an ‘aged shelf company’. It would not have been possible for a trust to be declared in respect of Tulip Trading Ltd in July 2011.

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The document bears Dr Wright’s name.
The document bears Dr Wright’s passport number.
Dr Wright has disclosed three versions of this document bearing identical handwritten signatures but different, edited content.
The edits were done on the same day and in a similar manner as the edits made to ID_001930.
13. The effect of the tampering is to appear supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto and the related claims he has made (in other litigation) to be the beneficial owner of large quantities of Bitcoin through a trust (i.e. giving the appearance of Dr Wright having owned large quantities of bitcoin since before 2012, consistently with his claim to have mined bitcoin as Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact.
14. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on his purported mining operations in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 1 at 115–121]
15. The document originates from a DOC file in which Dr Wright is recorded as the author.
16. Dr Wright sent this document as an attachment to an email on the same date that the edit took place, on 24 November 2015. [PM14 at 108]
17. The document is derived from a PDF file that records its author as “craig.wright”. That document itself is created from a precursor DOC file. No precursor DOC file has been disclosed
in these proceedings.
18. ID_001930 was created by scanning with a Toshiba e-STUDIO2555C scanner. The same scanner was used to create a large number of documents disclosed by Dr Wright in these
proceedings, including ID_001925, ID_001930 and all of documents ID_001936 to 1957 inclusive [PM14 at 173–175, 177, 192]. Of those documents, several bear independent indicia of
tampering, and 13 of them bear Dr Wright’s handwritten signature.
The effect of the tampering is to appear supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto and the related claims he has made (in other litigation) to be the beneficial owner of large quantities of Bitcoin through a trust (i.e. giving the appearance of Dr Wright having owned large quantities of bitcoin since before 2012, consistently with his claim to have mined bitcoin as Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on his purported mining operations in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 1 at 115–121]
The document originates from a DOC file in which Dr Wright is recorded as the author.
Dr Wright sent this document as an attachment to an email on the same date that the edit took place, on 24 November 2015. [PM14 at 108]
The document is derived from a PDF file that records its author as “craig.wright”. That document itself is created from a precursor DOC file. No precursor DOC file has been disclosed in these proceedings.
ID_001930 was created by scanning with a Toshiba e-STUDIO2555C scanner. The same scanner was used to create a large number of documents disclosed by Dr Wright in these proceedings, including ID_001925, ID_001930 and all of documents ID_001936 to 1957 inclusive [PM14 at 173–175, 177, 192]. Of those documents, several bear independent indicia of tampering, and 13 of them bear Dr Wright’s handwritten signature.

(36) ID_001930 Incorporation Form

The document presents as a scanned hard-copy version of a company incorporation form dated 21 July 2011, referring to a potential company name of Tulip Trading Ltd, and bearing Dr Wright’s signature.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been edited and backdated. [PM14 at 160–161]
The document contains internal metadata recording an “editedScannedDoc” action indicating that it was first scanned from hard copy and then digitally edited. The edits took place on 24 November 2015. Edits were made to three pages. [PM14 at 150–161]
Extracting embedded images from the PDF reveals graphical artefacts indicating that the “ultimate beneficial owner” set out on the form was altered so as to appear to specify Dr Wright as beneficial owner. [PM14 at 152–155]
Similar graphical artefacts indicate that the directors’ details set out on the form were changed to appear to specify Savannah Ltd as the sole director. [PM14 at 156]
Similar graphical artefacts indicate that the “accounting records address” set out on the form was altered so as to appear to specify Dr Wright’s former address as the place where accounting records would be held. [PM14 at 157]
Similar graphical artefacts indicate that the address for dispatch of corporate documents was altered to appear to specify Dr Wright’s former address. [PM14 at 158]
Similar graphical artefacts indicate that the contact details of the person who completed the form were altered so as to appear to specify contact details for Craig Wright. [PM14 at 159]
The presence of ID_001395 (an unedited version of the incorporation form) and ID_001394 (an email to Dr Wright to which ID_001395 is attached) in the disclosure set corroborates the edits that were made to ID_001930. [PM14 at 162–168]
Comparison with ID_001395 reveals the document signature to have been backdated from the original date (17 Oct 2014) to an earlier date (21 Jul 2011). [PM14 at 165]
The document ID_001930 contains two different unique identifiers embedded in its internal metadata. The presence of two different such unique identifiers is a characteristic of editing a PDF. The original document ID_001395 does not display this characteristic. [PM14 at 166–167]
The document refers to the incorporation of “Tulip Trading Ltd”. Tulip Trading Ltd was not incorporated by Dr Wright in 2011. It was purchased by Dr Wright in 2014 as an ‘aged shelf company’.

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The document is a company incorporation form in Dr Wright’s name.
The form (in this edited version) bears Dr Wright’s handwritten signature.
The handwritten signature is affixed to a declaration that the content is true to the best of the signing person’s knowledge and belief. The evident purpose of alteration was to change the content of a form certified as true by Dr Wright.
The effect of the tampering is to appear supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto and the related claims he has made (in other litigation) to be the beneficial owner of large quantities of Bitcoin through a trust (i.e. giving the appearance of Dr Wright having owned large quantities of bitcoin since before 2012, consistently with his claim to have mined bitcoin as Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on his purported mining operations in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [Wright 1 at 115–121]
The edits include acts of adding or modifying personal email and postal address details for Dr Wright.
The editing process caused a gap to appear within the handwritten signature. A copy of the same document has been disclosed in these proceedings as document ID_001932 in which the gaps in the signature have been filled in with disjointed lines inserted with the effect of masking that artefact. [PM14 at 174]
ID_001930 was created by scanning with a Toshiba e-STUDIO2555C scanner [PM14 at 110]. The same scanner was used to create a large number of documents disclosed by Dr Wright in these proceedings, including ID_001932 and all of documents ID_001935 to 1957 inclusive [PM14 at 149, 163, 172, 192]. Of those documents, several bear independent indicia of tampering, and 13 of them bear Dr Wright’s handwritten signature.
The original document (prior to editing) was emailed by Dr Wright to Mr Denis Makaya on 17 October 2014 [PM14 at 162]. The date it was emailed is consistent with the original date of signature of the document (17 October 2014). The date it was emailed is not consistent with the edited date of the document (21 Jul 2011).
The edits were done on the same day and in a similar manner as the edits made to ID_001925. [PM14 at 108–135]

Another example of a June 2015 email from Craig Wright (not cosplaying this time) to Michele Seven.

(37) ID_002586 Spoofed email from Dr Wright in the name of Satoshi Nakamoto (2)

The document purports to be an email sent to a person called “Michele Seven”, in June 2015, from Satoshi Nakamoto but signed with the name “Craig”.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document is an inauthentic, spoofed email. [PM21 at 54, 93]
The email was not sent from the account recorded as the sender. [PM21 at 94]
The email was not sent from a permitted source and did not authenticate with the purported vistomail origin server. [PM21 at 53–54]
Replies to the email would have been sent to the email address “satoshin@anonymousspeech.com”. This is notably similar to an authentic email address used by Satoshi Nakamoto, but is different. [PM21 at 43–44]
The document is recorded in its transmission header as being sent via a route corresponding to other emails in Dr Wright’s disclosure sent by Dr Wright from his email address @hotwirepe.com. [PM21 at 46–53]
The document was recorded in its transmission header as being “to craig.wright@hotwirepe.com” and “Delivered to craig.wright:hotwirepe.com”. It was not retrieved from the mailbox of Satoshi Nakamoto, but a received item from within Dr Wright’s email inbox consistent with him being included as recipient. [PM21 at 42–45]
No equivalent sent item has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM21 at 45]
This email is not authentically from the controller of the email account “satoshi@vistomail.com”. [PM21 at 34]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. as suggesting that he was using a Satoshi vistomail account in 2015), contrary to fact.
The document is an email sent in Dr Wright’s style of language using Dr Wright’s personal and hotwirepe email addresses.
The text of the document discourages its recipient from showing the content of the email to others.
The document is an email sent to a collaborator of Dr Wright.
The document was recorded in its transmission header as being “to craig.wright@hotwirepe.com” and “Delivered to craig.wright:hotwirepe.com”. It was not retrieved from the mailbox of Satoshi Nakamoto, but a received item from within Dr Wright’s email inbox consistent with him being included as recipient. [PM21 at 42–45]
No equivalent sent item has been disclosed by Dr Wright. [PM21 at 35]

(38+39) ID_003330 and ID_004011 Coffee-stained printout of Bitcoin White Paper (two Reliance Documents)

ID_003330 purports to be a photograph of the front page of a printout of the Bitcoin White Paper with Dr Wright’s name and contact details at the top and a note in Dr Wright’s own handwriting. The document is stapled and bears coffee stains. Dr Wright claims the original date of the document to be 3 October 2008 in his Chain of Custody information.
ID_004011 is a scan of the same document, also showing Dr Wright’s name and contact details at the top and the note seen on ID_003300, but with further manuscript amendments added by Dr Wright in his own handwriting which were not present in ID_003330.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

ID_003330 and ID_004011 bear the same coffee stain and other physical characteristics. They are plainly two records of the same hard-copy document at different points in time (the ‘Coffee-Stained Printout’).
ID_004011 has additional handwritten annotations which do not appear in ID_003330.
The Coffee-Stained Printout is a copy of an A4-size printout of the Bitcoin White Paper said to date from 3 October 2008. It bears Dr Wright’s name and contact details at Charles Sturt University, in a manner identical to ID_000536, ID_000537, and ID_000538, and those details in those other documents are otherwise identical to this document’s face-value content [PM3 at 10: Style 4 in relation to ID_00536 to ID_00538, and Style 8 in relation to ID_004011].
The Coffee-Stained Printout is a printout of a digital document. When imaged (whether as ID_003330 or as ID_004011), it carries no internal metadata for forensic examination of its original content. [PM15 at 1, 8; PM3 at 245]
No underlying digital document has been identified by Dr Wright. However, the title of the Coffee-Stained Printout contains the same hyphenation error as present in the title of ID_000537 (a native PDF), which reads “Peer-toPeer” [PM3 at 138–139]. That hyphenation error does not appear in any other versions of the Bitcoin White Paper, or any other documents, in Dr Wright’s disclosure. It is to be inferred that the Coffee-Stained Printout is a printout of an edited version of ID_000537.
The Reasons for Allegation of Forgery relating to ID_000537 (above) are therefore repeated.
As explained above in relation to ID_000537, that document could not have been created before 22 August 2019. On that basis, the Coffee-Stained Printout could not have been created before that date.
ID_003330 has been disclosed with external metadata indicating that it was created and/or sent by WhatsApp on 4 September 2019 [P15 at 6–10]. Taking this point with those above, Dr Wright’s handwritten annotations visible on the face of ID_003330 (the “Initial Handwritten Annotations”) date from the period 22 August 2019 to 4 September 2019.
ID_004011 was created by scanning using a Canon Multifunction Scanner/Printer device on 10 September 2019 [PM3 at 245]. Dr Wright’s further handwritten annotations, visible on the face of ID_004011 (the “Further Handwritten Annotations”), do not appear on the face of ID_003330. The Further Handwritten Annotations therefore date from the period between 4 September 2019 and 10 September 2019.
In each case, the Initial Handwritten Annotations and the Further Handwritten Annotations are of a nature tending to present the document and the annotations as if it was a printout of a draft of the Bitcoin White Paper containing annotations from 2008, contrary to fact.
In addition to the handwritten annotations, the Coffee-Stained Printout (as seen in ID_003330) contains physical characteristics including tears, marks, warped paper, and the prominent presence of a coffee stain. These characteristics are of a nature tending to present the document as if it was an aged document, contrary to fact. In fact, for the aforesaid reasons, the Coffee-Stained Printout was not two weeks old by the date that the photograph ID_003330 was taken. It is to be inferred that these indicia of age were added during that period, in an attempt to make the document to appear to be older than it was.
Following receipt of the Madden Report, Dr Wright has accepted in his Chain of Custody information that ID_003330 was taken using his Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus Mobile Phone, a device that was not released until 2019, and he has said that some annotations in red ink were added between 2017 and 2020. This account is implausible. COPA contends that the document itself, including all the annotations, are inauthentic to their purported date in 2008.

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Dr Wright has positively asserted that both of these documents are documents on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
Dr Wright has chosen to rely in these proceedings on two copies of the Coffee-Stained Printout (ID_004011 and ID_003330) both of which are stripped of metadata by reason of their creation process, but he has not relied on or disclosed any underlying digital document that contains relevant metadata.
The documents both contain notes in Dr Wright’s own handwriting.
Dr Wright accepts that he deliberately altered the Coffee-Stained Printout in his own handwriting at some time during 2017–2020.
Dr Wright accepts that the photograph ID_003330 was taken on his own mobile phone.
The effect of the creation of Coffee-Stained Printout in the way described is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. as a predecessor version of the Bitcoin White Paper, recorded for posterity), contrary to fact.
Dr Wright refused to provide information about the dating of his Reliance Documents, including these, when requested. Only following service of the Madden Report did he provide an alternative account of the origin of these documents. As noted above, his account is implausible.
The effect of the alterations has been to introduce annotations referring to matters on which Dr Wright relies in his evidence in these proceedings.
The document bears Dr Wright’s name and contact details.
The contact details included refer to Charles Sturt University. In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright has claimed to have drafted and shared versions of the Bitcoin White Paper while studying at Charles Sturt University, and to have discussed the concepts with teaching staff at Charles Sturt University. [Wright 1 at 87; Wright 4 at 52]
Dr Wright claims, in his Chain of Custody information, to have drafted this document.

(40) ID_003455 False NAB Account Records

The document presents as an email sent from Dr Wright to a collaborator, Jimmy Nguyen, in which he presents screenshots of banking records from his personal bank account and explains
the relationship of the information in those screenshots to his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The banking record in the email has been admitted by Dr Wright to be a false document.
Dr Wright did not admit that record to be false until after service of the Madden Report.
The filenames of the images embedded within the email indicate that the email was edited through an unusual process by which 6 images were embedded into the email, and the email was saved as a draft. However all but two of these images were deleted before sending. [PM17 at 14–15]
The missing images from the email editing process have not themselves been disclosed. [PM17 at 16]
The content of the screenshots indicates that they were taken in 2018 or afterwards. [PM17 at 18–28]
Native format exports of the documents would have been available to Dr Wright but were not provided in disclosure. [PM17 at 11]
Taking into account the transactions shown in the document, it would not have been possible to take authentic screenshots using the software indicated in the screenshots themselves. By the time that software was released (2018), the transactions shown were from a date which was 10 years or more in the past. The bank in question stores records for online access for no more than 2 years. [PM17 at 29–35]
The content of web page screenshots is freely manipulable in Google Chrome, being the software shown as being used in the screenshots. [PM17 at 36–40]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The false screenshots in the document are taken from Dr Wright’s own personal bank account.
The false screenshots in the document include a screenshot of the account holder details specifically identifying Dr Wright as the account holder.
Dr Wright must have known that the screenshots in question were false when he sent the email (as indeed he now admits he did).
Dr Wright did not admit the documents to be false until after service of the Madden Report.
Dr Wright is and at all material times has been in possession of documents that prove this document to be false (in the form of authentic, contemporaneous bank statements for the same account in question, but which do not bear the transaction information on which he relies).
Dr Wright did not disclose the authentic bank statements in accordance with his duties of disclosure. Instead, Dr Wright disclosed the false screenshots.
Dr Wright has publicly asserted (notably in his “Evidence and Law Article”) that he was in control of records of the kind shown in this document, which he purported to be decisively probative by way of evidence of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Such public assertions were made at a time contemporaneous to the date of this document being created.
Dr Wright’s attempts to explain the records as false documents supplied to him by an unknown person over Reddit, and to explain his email as intended to check the falsity of the documents, are highly implausible. Dr Wright’s attempted explanations rely on information being purportedly passed to him by his previous legal representative who has died, and are unsupported by disclosure.
The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. as proving his purchase of a domain associated with Satoshi), contrary to fact.
The document is sent from Dr Wright to a collaborator of Dr Wright’s and contains text written by Dr Wright apparently intended to persuade the recipient that the information is supportive of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.

(41) ID_003702 LLM Dissertation Proposal 3

The document is identical in content to ID_00217. It is attached to an email dated 18 September 2019.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The content of ID_003702 is identical to that of ID_000217. The paragraphs above relating to ID_000217 are thus repeated.
The email to which ID_003702 was attached refers to it as “Fyi. The start of bitcoin”. [PM25 at 14]
The document does not authentically date from the origins of Bitcoin. [PM25 at 16]
The email to which ID_003702 was attached is dated 18 September 2019. That is contemporary to the hidden embedded Grammarly timestamps in the document (dated 1 month earlier) but not to the purported date of the document. [PM25 at 14]
Although the metadata of the document date it to 18 September 2019, the content of the document purports to originate from the time that Dr Wright was studying his LLM.

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The content of ID_003702 is identical to that of ID_000217. The paragraphs above relating to ID_000217 are thus repeated.
ID_003702 was sent from Dr Wright by way of a personal email by Dr Wright to Ms Julianne Archer (also known as Julie Laimer).
Ms Archer is understood by COPA to be Dr Wright’s mother.
ID_003702 was emailed from Dr Wright’s personal email address.
The subject of the email is in the first person “I am sharing ‘LLM_ProposalA.doc’ with you”. The signature of the email is “Shared from Word for Android”. This is consistent with the email being sent by Dr Wright from his personal Android mobile device in 2019, an Android-based Samsung Mobile phone.

(42) ID_003732 Bitcoin White Paper — Edited to include Dr Wright’s Leicester contact details

The document purports to be a copy of the Bitcoin White Paper bearing Dr Wright’s name and email address at Leicester University, and the company name “nChain Ltd”.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document is a copy of the Bitcoin White Paper, which has been edited to add Dr Wright’s name and contact details in place of Satoshi Nakamoto’s. [PM3 at 75–88]
The document bears a “last modified” timestamp of 22 May 2019. [PM3 at 76]
The author name “Craig Steven Wright” and the keywords “law”, “smart contract” and “immutable” have been added to the metadata of the document, which were not present in the original version of the Bitcoin White Paper published by Satoshi Nakamoto. [PM3 at 76, 84–85]
The document contains an embedded font containing a copyright statement dating to 2017. [PM3 at 78–80]
The document contains internal hidden content streams indicating the addition, in 2019, of content relating to Dr Wright into the original Bitcoin White Paper. [PM3 at 81]
The document was authored using a version of Adobe software dating to 2018. [PM3 at 81–83]
The document was edited in the time zone UTC+1, consistent with Dr Wright’s local time zone in May 2019 (British Summer Time). [PM3 at 82]
The document contains “Touchup_textedit” tags indicating editing by later software to add Dr Wright’s name and contact details. [PM3 at 86–87]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Dr Wright’s name and contact information are on the face of the document.
Dr Wright’s name appears in the metadata of the document as its author. [PM3 at 76, 84–85]
The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. as purporting to be a copy of the Bitcoin White Paper bearing Dr Wright’s contact information in place of that of Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact.
The keywords “law”, “smart contract” and “immutable” which have been added to the document’s metadata align with Dr Wright’s claim to the superiority of “his” vision of Bitcoin, via the competing cryptocurrency BSV.
Dr Wright has chosen to rely on non-native and/or multiply-converted versions of the Bitcoin White Paper. Dr Wright has not chosen to rely on any original native versions of the Bitcoin White Paper which might otherwise have relevant metadata attached.
Dr Wright shared a hash-identical copy of this document on social media within 49 seconds of its last modified timestamp. Upon request in these proceedings, Dr Wright has repeatedly declined to disclose a copy of his posts to social media accounts. Since the date of the Request, Dr Wright has claimed to have lost access to the relevant social media account.

“Nothing Says ‘Authentic’ Like A Rusty Staple

Serial forger and Satoshi Nakamoto wannabe, Craig Wright, has discovered a new fakery technique, as wingman Calvin Ayre inadvertently revealed. Referring to the ‘mountain of evidence’ being prepared in Wright’s libel case against Peter McCormack, Ayre claims to have seen ‘historical documents’ such as handwritten versions of the Bitcoin white paper, complete with ‘coffee stains’ and ‘rusty staples’.” — Bitcoinist, 2019

(43) ID_004010 Bitcoin White Paper, Coffee stained, rusty staples (Reliance Document)

The document purports to be an aged copy of the Bitcoin White Paper. It is held together with a staple that is rusty and has a coffee ring on the front page.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document is a scan of a print-out of the Bitcoin White Paper. [PM3 at 192]
Based on its format and the signs of editing referred to below, the document has undergone several steps of conversion (conversion from PDF to editable form, printing into hard copy, and then scanning back into PDF) [PM3 at 203]. The process of conversion has erased relevant metadata. [PM3 at 193]
Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto and to have used that pseudonym between 2008 and 2012. However, the document cannot have been created before August 2012. [PM3 at 204, notably 204.f.]
The document contains placeholder font characters indicative of being created by imperfect conversion from the published Bitcoin White Paper (PDF) into an editable format. [PM3 at 193–203]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
Dr Wright relied on this document in the similar proceedings in Oslo, Norway (the Granath litigation) as a document on which he relied as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
Dr Wright has chosen to rely on non-native and/or multiply-converted versions of the Bitcoin White Paper. Dr Wright has not chosen to rely on any original native versions of the Bitcoin White Paper which might otherwise have relevant metadata attached.
The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. to create a document appearing to be a version of the Bitcoin White Paper in Dr Wright’s possession which accords with his narrative of writing the White Paper), contrary to fact.

Image of the “BDO Minutes” from the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit.

(44) ID_004013 Handwritten BDO Minutes (Reliance Document)

The document presents as a set of minutes of a meeting attended by Dr Wright and Alan Granger, dated “Aug 07”, at BDO. It refers to “timechain”, “P2p ecash”, and “write paper”, as connected concepts to Dr Wright’s purported creation of Bitcoin, and presents as if it concerns planning for work to be done by Dr Wright and Mr Granger throughout 2007 and 2008.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document is handwritten on a pre-printed pad that was manufactured in China. Bird & Bird has obtained a copy of the original PDF print proof document of the pad directly from the manufacturer. The copy of the original PDF proof document is an authentic document. [PM5 at 3–17 and 25]
The handwritten document ID_004013 perfectly matches the pre-printed template in the version of the PDF print proofs known as Exhibit MS1 (the first proof of the relevant notepad product). [PM5 at 17–25]
The PDF print proofs known as Exhibit MS1, which this document matches, date from no earlier than 6 November to 9 November 2009. [PM5 at 3–17 and 25]
The face-value date of August 2007 is therefore false and misleading.
Further, the purported notes of planning for work to be done throughout 2007 and 2008 are also therefore false and misleading.

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. as creating a document which suggests that Dr Wright was developing Bitcoin in 2007 and had shared details of his work with Mr Granger), contrary to fact.
Dr Wright has relied on this document in previous proceedings, including on oath.
The document is in Dr Wright’s own handwriting.
In the document, Dr Wright has named himself as present at the purported meeting, in his own handwriting.
Dr Wright purports to have attended a meeting and taken these minutes himself. Dr Wright must know from his own experience that the meeting, and the purported minutes of the meeting, are false.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright relies on a purported discussion of Bitcoin between him and Alan Granger, among other work done with Alan Granger around 2007. [Wright 1 at 48–52]
In his chain of custody information in these proceedings, Dr Wright claims to have drafted this document himself.
When disclosing this document, Dr Wright did not specify a date for the document. When requested to provide a date for this document, Dr Wright refused to do so.

Busted in 2019 (Modern Consensus), busted in 2022 (hodlonaut v Wright), busted in 2023 (COPA, below). When jail?

(45) ID_004019 Tominaka Nakamoto: Monumenta Nipponica

The document presents as a printout of a journal article concerning a historical figure called “Nakamoto”, purportedly downloaded on 5 January 2008, and annotated by Dr Wright by hand in his own handwriting in terms associating himself with that historical figure “Nakamoto”.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated. [PM6 at 55]. The timestamp at the top of the document has been altered, with the digits of the hour and of the year entered in different font to the rest of the timestamp. [PM6 at 3]
The document is a hand-annotated printout of a digital document [PM6 at 5]. The underlying digital document has not been disclosed.
The original source of the document was discovered by searching on the internet. [PM6 at 27–30]
The genuine date of the source document is not 2008, but 2015. The document remains available online now. [PM6 at 27–32]
The original document was downloaded from the academic repository website JSTOR. By inspection of the footer against a comparator data set of over 180 other documents downloaded from JSTOR, it is possible to identify 7 epochs during which the design of the footer of JSTOR documents changed in the decade between January 2007 and December 2016. The dates of changes of design can be pinpointed to six specific days in that decade. By comparison of the footer of ID_004019 to that data set, it is possible to establish that the footer is contemporary to the period between 19 March 2013 and 22 March 2016. [PM6 at 33–47]
Further, by comparison with 10 other independently-downloaded documents dated 5 Jan 2008 within that dataset, it can be established that the footer of the ID_004019 is notably different from those on documents from 2008, and therefore is not contemporaneous with such documents from 2008. [PM6 at 48–51]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The underlying digital document has not been disclosed.
The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. by suggesting that he had read a paper about Tominaga Nakamoto before he coined the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto), contrary to fact.
In his evidence in these proceedings, Dr Wright claims that the name “Satoshi Nakamoto” was chosen due to his ‘admiration for the philosopher Tominaga Nakamoto’. It is to be inferred that this forgery was done to support that aspect of his claim. [Wright 1 at 66]
Dr Wright has publicly asserted this document to be supportive of his claim.
Dr Wright has publicly maintained the authenticity of this document in social media posts.
This document was photographed by Dr Wright for transmission via WhatsApp [PM6 at 7]. The photograph was taken around 1 week before this document was scanned into PDF form. This is consistent with other examples within disclosure where Dr Wright has photographed other documents bearing indicia of tampering, for sending via WhatsApp, before they were scanned and disclosed.

(46+47+48) ID_004077, ID_004078, and ID_004079 MYOB accounting screenshots (Reliance Documents)

The documents present as series of screenshots from an MYOB accounting database apparently recording a series of transactions of Dr Wright, dated to 2009, connected to mining bitcoin and accounting for it in relation to Wright International Investments Limited, Seychelles.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The accounting entries have been backdated. MYOB software allows accounting records to be created with any date selected by the user. It is possible, and has at all times been possible, to create identical records to those shown in these Reliance Documents by simple entry and manual backdating, and freely to populate information within the record system. [PM7 at 33–45]
The accounts are dated as if from 2009–2010 [PM9 at 23]. However, the accounting entries ascribe high monetary values to bitcoin which are not consistent with the actual value of bitcoin at the purported date of the entries.
The relevant accounting audit logs demonstrate that the entries were inputted on 6–7 March 2020 and edited during that time, so that they are not authentic to their purported dates. [PM21 at 59–65]
The accounting records refer to an invalid ABN (Australian Business Number). [PM7 at 50–55]
The documents are screenshots of information contained within an accounting database that was included incidentally with Dr Wright’s disclosure by reason of being embedded within a zip file containing other documents. It was not disclosed with its own ID number.
Each version of the accounting software in which these records were created is freely downloadable from the MYOB website. [PM7 at 17]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Each of these documents is a document Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. as supposedly evidencing transactions featuring within his narrative), contrary to fact.
The session audit logs indicate that the person using the database attempted to log in with the usernames “Administrator” and craig@panopticrypt.com in quick succession. Craig@panopticrypt.com is Dr Wright. [PM7 at 64]
Dr Wright has chosen to rely on non-native screenshot versions of his accounting database. Dr Wright has not chosen to rely on native documents.
The only corresponding native document disclosed in these proceedings is a file that has been backdated.
The backdated native document was not disclosed as part of Dr Wright’s list, nor was it described or given a date. It was disclosed incidentally, buried within a zip file within a zip file within an attachment to an otherwise blank email [Madden main report, paragraph 166.d.]. It
is to be inferred that Dr Wright did not intend to disclose the native file, but intended for the native file to remain unavailable.
The documents were created in the course of litigation between Dr Wright and others to be deployed in that litigation in support of his claims, as they have been deployed in this litigation.
The company Wright International Investments Limited was an inactive shelf company which did not operate before 2014 when it was purchased by Dr Wright. It could not therefore have been responsible for the accounts entered into these records, as Dr Wright must have known.
Since service of the Madden Report, Dr Wright has altered his position in respect of these documents and has put forward an explanation by way of references to purported facts that are implausible and do not explain the indicia of tampering.

(49) ID_004515 Email to Lynn Wright

The document is an email from Dr Wright to Lynn Wright purportedly dated 27 March 2011 and attaching ID_004516.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

ID_004515 has been backdated. The email was sent using Microsoft Outlook 16. Microsoft Outlook 16 was not published until September 2015, several years after the date of the document (2011). [PM9 at 25, 30]
The document contains metadata features consistent with editing of the message using the “Edit Message” function of Microsoft Outlook after it was sent and received. [PM9 at 31–34]
The document attaches ID_004516, which is a backdated document actually created after 2016.
The document purports to have been sent by Craig Wright “on behalf of” himself. It is irregular for an email to contain the same sender email address in both its delegated ‘from’ and ‘on behalf of’ fields. The transmission header of the document records that it was sent with Microsoft Outlook. Microsoft Outlook does not permit emails to be configured in this way. [PM9 at 10–12]
The document contains an improperly formatted “From” field, having an appearance of a properly-formatted email address but in fact being constructed from typed text. The sender address has been edited. [PM9 at 6–9]
The document contains an improperly formatted recipient field, having an appearance of a properly-formatted email address but in fact being constructed from typed text. The recipient display name has been edited. [PM9 at 13–18]
Although the document purports on its face to have been sent from “Craig S Wright <Craig S Wright <craig.wright@information-defense.com>> on behalf of Craig S Wright <Craig S
Wright <craig.wright@information-defense.com>” to “lynn.wright@information-defense.com”, the internal metadata indicates that the original email was sent by Dr Wright to himself at the email address “craig@rcjbr.org”. [PM9 at 19–20]
The transmission header of the document contains references to earlier emails, including an apparent reference to the name “mitchieshehadie” in relation to an email pertinent to this document. The name Michael Shehadie appears in other documents in the disclosure dataset, but does not appear on the face of this document. [PM9 at 29]
The internal metadata of the document indicates that it was apparently edited on 22 July 2020. [PM9 at 21–22]
The metadata of the email lists the attachment as having been created on 17 July 2020. This is significantly later than the purported authorship of the email (27 March 2011) and cannot be explained by handling errors. [PM9 at 57–59]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

The email lists Dr Wright as the sender.
The email lists Dr Wright as the original recipient.
The effect of the forgery is to create a document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. as supposedly evidencing Dr Wright sending his wife in 2011 a document the content of which was intended to support his claim), contrary to fact.
Dr Wright has disclosed a second version of the same email, in which certain indications of tampering have been corrected. Other indicia of tampering have been added or included. Both copies were in Dr Wright’s possession or control. It is to be inferred that Dr Wright first created a poor forgery, and then sought to refine it.
The document contains no body content other than the attachment ID_004516. ID_004516 is a backdated document. The reasons set out below in relation to ID_004516 are relied upon herein in relation to ID_004516.

The forgery described below comes in multiple versions, dated October and November 2002.

(50) ID_004516 “Project Spyder”

This document purports to be a copy of a “Project Spyder” research paper dated on its face to 3 October 2002. The document contains references to a “Stage 4 — Release Phase” and other textual amendments, referring to “Digital Cash”, as well as other features of purported relevance to Bitcoin. It is dated on its face to 9 November 2002.

This November 2002 version was spread by Craig Wright in 2019 in his private Slack Room.

Reasons for Allegation of Forgery

The document has been backdated [PM9 at 94, 137–138]. The document contains hidden, embedded Grammarly timestamps indicating its true date to be later than 2 June 2016 07:16:23 UTC. [PM9 at 78–79]
The Grammarly software did not exist in 2002 [Madden Report at 62c] but is contemporaneous for 2016. [Madden Report at 70–72]
The document contains an impossible edit time of minus 13 years, 7 months and 4 days [PM9 at 70]. That negative edit time is an approximate match for time between the true date of creation (being 2016, corresponding to the Grammarly timestamp) and the false, purported date of creation (said to be 2002). [PM9 at 82–83]
The document has been created by importing content from a DOCX file. The DOCX file format was not yet available in 2002, but is contemporaneous to 2016. [PM9 at 72]
The document contains embedded internal references to Microsoft schema not yet published in 2001 but which are contemporary to 2006, 2012, and later. [PM9 at 73–74]
The document contains embedded references to fonts including Calibri Light and Nirmala UI [PM9 at 75]. Those fonts were not yet published in 2008 [Madden Report at 165]. Further, the designers of those fonts have given evidence relied on by COPA in these proceedings that the fonts were not yet conceived of or designed by the purported date of this document.
The document was attached to an email [ID_004515] which itself contains significant irregularities and is not authentic. [PM9 at 134]
The document is part of a series of manipulated documents, all of which carry similar content on their face, but which have been edited or are converted versions of the same file. Several of those documents are consistent with a pattern of editing beginning with an earlier precursor document, and ending with a document which would be deployed as if it was original and authentic, in connection with Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. [PM8 as a whole, especially at 1–3, 30–33, 60–61; PM9 as a whole, especially at 1–2; 93; 131; 137–142]

Reasons for Inference of Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility

Dr Wright is listed in the metadata as the author of the document.
Dr Wright is listed on the face of the document as its first author.
The document contains Dr Wright’s address and telephone number.
Dr Wright is listed as the “person giving approval” on page 6 of the document.
Dr Wright is listed as the “Project Manager” on page 7 of the document.
Dr Wright is listed as the first and last author in the ‘version control’ section of the document on page 2.
The document was attached to an email sent from Dr Wright’s email address.
The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (suggesting work done by him in 2002, elements of which then appeared in the Bitcoin White Paper), contrary to fact.
Dr Wright has relied on this document, or documents with similar content, in previous proceedings and in public in support of his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto.
In his Defence in these proceedings, in public social media posts, and elsewhere, Dr Wright has repeatedly stated that the series of research papers (to which this document belongs) are related to the Bitcoin White Paper, and that later applications (submitted in 2009/2010) contained the abstract of the Bitcoin White Paper.
Dr Wright is a user of Grammarly software.

The end. Thanks for reading!

It’s inevitable.

Faketoshi And The Madden50 was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.