On several occasions, Dr Wright boasted of having numerous degrees, doctorates and qualifications in ‘relevant disciplines’. There was specific evidence of his MStat degree from the University of Newcastle, his LLM from the University of Northumbria and his PhD in Computer Science and Economics. He also spoke of his various certifications relating to coding (just mentioned) and his qualifications in IT Security matters.

It is true, as Dr Wright’s Counsel submitted in closing, that COPA did not challenge his primary evidence as to his degrees and qualifications, although COPA and the Developers made it clear they did not mean he was Satoshi. The scope and extent of his knowledge was also challenged in three specific respects which I deal with below. However, at the general level, in other circumstances I would not have commented further on these matters. In the context of this case where Dr Wright has, in my judgment, engaged in wholesale forgery, fabrication and exaggeration, it would not come as a surprise to find that he had also engaged in significant exaggeration as to his degrees and qualifications. However, I will proceed on the basis that everything he said about his degrees and qualifications is true.

In their written closing, Counsel for Dr Wright addressed three specific topics on which Dr Wright’s knowledge and expertise was the subject of challenge. These were (a) COPA’s allegation of plagiarism by Dr Wright in his LLM Dissertation, (b) COPA’s forgery allegation relating to his LLM Proposal and (c) Mr Hearn’s evidence about the July 2016 dinner with Dr Wright.

I deal with the disputes over the dinner in its chronological context below. The significance of the first two topics lies in the fact that in Wright1 [56]-[60], Dr Wright said (a) that from 2005-2007, in addition to his work at BDO, he pursued his LLM, (b) over several months he ‘painstakingly drafted and edited my LLM thesis’ and (c) ‘my exploration of these issues subsequently informed my vision for Bitcoin’.

Since his LLM Dissertation was a published document, Dr Wright was not able to manipulate its content. His LLM proposal was not a published document. In sections 8 and 12 of the Appendix, I have found that Dr Wright’s LLM Proposal documents were forged by him to include references to concepts taken by him from the Bitcoin White Paper.

As for the content of his LLM Dissertation itself, in my judgment at [2023] EWHC 2642 (Ch) I refused permission to COPA to plead the alleged plagiarism by way of similar fact, on the basis that (see [78 ii)] ‘the accusation that Dr Wright takes credit and passes off the work of others as his own pales into insignificance when viewed against the principal issue which is whether he is Satoshi and the evidence which has already been foreshadowed that the trial Judge is likely to hear.’ At [78 i)] in that Judgment I recorded the acceptance by the then leading counsel for Dr Wright that COPA would be entitled to cross-examine Dr Wright at trial about his copying of passages from the identified works of Hilary Pearson on the basis that he had identified his LLM thesis as containing work which contributed to his development of Bitcoin.

The extent of Dr Wright’s copying from Ms Pearson’s works was set out in an article she exhibited which was written by ‘paintedfrog’. Ms Pearson (a former partner in Bird & Bird) confirmed the analysis was accurate and that the passages identified as copied from her own works copied were her own original work. The two opening paragraphs of her paper entitled ‘Liability of Internet Service Providers’ (1996) were copied word for word. There were other instances of verbatim copying but the majority of the material was reworded, rather than copied verbatim. That paper contained 58 paragraphs, of which 45 were copied by Dr Wright, 25 in full and 20 in large part. I agree that the plagiarism was extensive and methodical.

Dr Wright also copied and reworded a paragraph from another of Ms Pearson’s papers entitled ‘Intellectual Property and the Internet: A Comparison of UK and US Law’ (1998). The paintedfrog article goes on to discuss copying of text and structure from other papers, including Mann & Beazley’s ‘The Promise of Internet Intermediary Liability’ (2005), which, unlike Ms Pearson’s papers, is referenced in the dissertation, albeit with minimal credit.

Dr Wright was cross-examined on Day 6 about his copying from Ms Pearson’s works on the basis of the paintedfrog article. His principal excuse was that in earlier versions of his dissertation, he had acknowledged Ms Pearson’s work, but that his use of Endnote resulted in references to her paper(s) being removed. He also claimed that Ms Pearson’s work did not ‘come up properly because its not actually an academic thing, it’s a blog’. This was plainly untrue. He also claimed to have used an editing service and when the document was returned to him, he didn’t notice the reference to Ms Pearson’s paper(s) had been removed.

I found Dr Wright’s evidence and excuses on this issue deeply unconvincing. He sought to reduce the whole issue to a referencing error, whereas the real point lay in just how extensive and deliberate his copying had been, which demonstrated that his evidence in Wright1 that he had ‘painstakingly drafted and edited my LLM thesis’ was, at best, highly misleading. It also illustrated, in my judgment, that his LLM Dissertation really had nothing to do with the genesis of Bitcoin. It also casts doubt on his assertions of having earned numerous degrees.