In Wright11, [269-297], Dr Wright set out an elaborate story which included him having received emails from Denis Mayaka on 10 and 29 September 2023. Mr Mayaka was a company formation agent who was involved in Dr Wright’s acquisition of Tulip Trading Limited as a company incorporated in the Seychelles. Dr Wright claimed that Mr Mayaka had used, not his professional email address, but a Gmail one: papa.neema@gmail.com. Dr Wright said that, on 10 September 2023, “Papa Neema” sent files said to be tied to Dr Wright’s companies in 2009 to 2012 {CSW/25/1}. These included alleged invoices from Abacus Seychelles and a version of the “Timecoin” paper (which I address in the next section). He also said that “Papa Neema” separately sent photographs of a computer monitor with images of the invoices on them.

There are a series of indications that these emails were sent by Dr Wright to himself, as further detailed in Madden5, from [87] onwards {G/9/29}.

155.1.

First, the time zone setting of the emails (both those dated 10 and those dated 29 September) was +0100, which was consistent with the UK but not with Mr Mayaka’s residence (Nairobi, Kenya +0300). Faced with that inconvenient fact, Dr Wright claimed that Mr Mayaka set his computer clock to London time because he worked with British clients. I agree with COPA that was an obvious lie: it makes no sense for someone to do that {Day15/49:23} - {Day15/50:17}.

155.2.

Secondly, there are a series of dubious features to the Timecoin document supposedly sent by Papa Neema, including the fact that Papa Neema just happened to send it to Dr Wright five days before he found the Samsung Drive containing a hash-identical copy of this previously “lost” document.

155.3.

Thirdly, there were further suspicious features associated with the Abacus invoices, including the fact that four documents created on different dates across two years (with different templates) had file titles with the same spelling mistake (“Invoive” for “Invoice”).

155.4.

Fourthly, there are a series of indications that the computer monitor screen on the photographs sent by “Papa Neema” was Dr Wright’s, including that the tabs shown referenced his documents (at least one from the BDO Drive) and his favoured software products.

I am well aware that COPA did not include the Papa Neema emails in their supplemental Schedules of Dr Wright’s forgeries, although Mr Sherrell’s Twentieth Witness Statement set out in detail COPA’s reasons for alleging they were. COPA faced a constantly moving target of forged documents produced by Dr Wright which continued up to the start of trial and, indeed, during it. COPA made their position very clear and Dr Wright was given every opportunity to rebut their allegations. Accordingly, I do not consider that I am disqualified from making findings on these emails and their contents.

For all the reasons set out in Madden5 in his analysis of the Papa Neema emails, I find they were not genuine and were sent by Dr Wright to himself.