The position on the pleadings

836.

I deal first with that last submission made on behalf of Dr Wright, clearly made in his written closing and amplified orally, as I explain below. On the pleadings, the position was as follows. In their Particulars of Claim, COPA referred to the GQ interview and the ensueing offer by Dr Wright of ‘Extraordinary proof’. Their case is set out in [21]:

‘Accordingly, Wright has publicly asserted that one of the ways he can prove he

is Satoshi is by referencing his ability to make transactions associated with the

Genesis Block and other early Blocks. To date, Wright has failed to do so.’

837.

In his Defence at [34], Dr Wright admitted that he had not publicly demonstrated that ability, but he alleged that he had in private demonstrations to Messrs Andresen & Matonis (re Blocks 1 and 9), and to Messrs Cellan-Jones and Siegele (re Block 9). COPA’s reply put him to proof on these matters.

838.

In his oral closing, Lord Grabiner KC submitted as follows:

838.1.

First, that it was not open to COPA to run a case that any of the proof sessions was subverted by Dr Wright, on the basis that any such allegation was of fraud or dishonesty which must be clearly pleaded.

838.2.

Second, that, in the absence of a specific plea of dishonesty, it is not open to the Court to make a finding of dishonesty, citing Three Rivers, per Lord Millett at [186].

838.3.

Third, Counsel for COPA never put a case of subversion to Dr Wright in cross-examination. At most, he said, it was merely suggested to Dr Wright that it would have been feasible to create a malware program and ‘straightforward for someone with Dr Wright’s experience’ to stage the signing session with Mr Andresen {see {Day8/73:22 -74:23}}.

838.4.

Fourth, for completeness, the issue of subversion was nevertheless addressed in Dr Wright’s written closing.

839.

In response to the challenge, Mr Hough KC made COPA’s position very clear. I can summarise it in the following:

839.1.

First, Counsel reminded me of an exchange which took place with Dr Wright’s then Counsel, Mr Flynn KC, during the hearing in October 2023 following which I gave COPA permission to plead 50 allegations of forgery. In the course of argument Mr Flynn KC made the point that Dr Wright cannot be negligently asserting that he is Satoshi and that ‘Everything he does, on their case, is dishonest’, to which I observed: ‘Yes. They are saying his entire claim to be Satoshi is dishonest.’ ‘And anything supporting or which purports to support that claim is dishonest.’

839.2.

Counsel also drew attention to the fact that in my Judgment from that hearing [2023] EWHC 2642 (Ch) at [15] and particularly [54] I acknowledged that ‘the essential feature’ of COPA’s claim was that Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi was fraudulent and, consistently with that, the documents he relies upon in support of that claim have been forged.

839.3.

However, this point proves too much. As Mr Flynn KC observed immediately after the exchange I mentioned above, those points do not take one anywhere because the cases are very clear. Allegations of fraud and dishonesty must be distinctly and properly pleaded. I do not think Mr Hough KC was denying that, he was simply making the point that everyone (including Dr Wright’s legal team) understood what COPA’s case was.

839.4.

Second, Counsel referred to the pleaded case that Dr Wright never reliably proved his possession of the private keys and that they put in issue what happened at the signing sessions.

839.5.

Third, Counsel submitted that COPA was not able to plead a positive case about what happened in the signing sessions, because that was outside their knowledge.

839.6.

Similarly, in response to the point that it was incumbent on COPA to put to Dr Wright that the signing sessions were subverted in a particular way, for example by saying that he used DNS hijacking or typosquatting or use of malware to interfere with Electrum, Counsel submitted COPA was not able to do that.

839.7.

Relatedly, Counsel submitted that what COPA were able to do (and did) was to challenge Dr Wright on his version of what happened at each stage as well as putting to him the ways in which the sessions could have been staged.

839.8.

Accordingly, Counsel submitted that the finding that COPA seeks (and is entitled to seek) is a finding that Dr Wright did not possess the private keys (e.g. to any of the early blocks, but blocks 1 and 9 in particular) and that the signing sessions did not prove otherwise.