Before turning to the evidence which emerged from production of the metadata underlying the White Paper LaTeX Files, I mention four points which arise from the sequence of events set out above.

First, Dr Wright deleted the previous folders on Overleaf from which he derived the Bitcoin folder. In Shoosmiths’ letter dated 20 February 2024, they said:

“Dr Wright tells us that he cannot remember what those previous project folders were called or whether he copied them directly within Overleaf or copied them from local copies he had previously downloaded from Overleaf. In any event, Dr Wright says that he deleted the previous projects folders after copying their contents into Maths (OLD). As a result, Dr Wright says he no longer has the project folder used for the Overleaf demonstration to this firm earlier on 17 November 2023.”

I agree that there can have been no good reason for Dr Wright to have deleted those folders. From his own writings, Dr Wright is well aware of the adverse consequences attendant on the destruction of documents in this way: {L1/470/8}-{L1/470/9} and {Day15/114-117}.

Dr Wright was challenged on the deletion of the previous files in this passage of cross-examination:

“151:17 Q. So earlier, on 17 November, you had the so-called White

18 Paper LaTeX files in a different folder to Maths (OLD)

19 or the Bitcoin folder, right?

20 A. I copied it into my R drive and then uploaded into

21 multiple places for the demonstrations.

22 Q. And you have failed to produce the folder that held

23 those earlier files, haven't you?

24 A. Because I copied back and forwards between the others.

25 Q. You deleted it?

152: 1 A. No, I did not. I moved it.

2 Q. Can we go to {M1/2/210}.

3 This a letter from Shoosmiths, dated

4 20 February 2024, so very recently, and we can see in

5 paragraph 2.1:

6 "As you note in Your Letter, the Maths (OLD) project

7 was created on 17 November 2023 at 16:26 [pm] ..."

8 As I just put to you:

9 "Dr Wright instructs us that this project was

10 created by merging and/or copying files into Maths (OLD)

11 from previous Overleaf project folders. Dr Wright tells

12 us that he cannot remember what those previous project

13 folders were called or whether he copied them directly

14 within Overleaf or copied them from local copies he had

15 previously downloaded from Overleaf. In any event,

16 Dr Wright says that he deleted the previous projects

17 folders after copying their contents ..."

18 Why have you lied to me about that basic point,

19 Dr Wright?

20 A. I didn't. If you're talking about the previous things,

21 then, yes, I've deleted them multiple times. Overleaf

22 goes back quite a while, including multiple accounts.

23 And have I kept them? No. I've copied between

24 different Overleaf folders.

25 Q. I said specifically to you that you had deleted those

153: 1 previous folders, and you said, "No, I did not, I moved

2 it", is what you said.

3 A. When you're moving, it actually changes the folder

4 structure. So, we're talking about different things.

5 I'm talking about the earlier stuff that I had in

6 Overleaf here; you're talking about what I did on

7 the 17th. So, they're different things.

8 Q. Dr Wright, you deleted relevant and disclosable material

9 just a couple of weeks before your application for an

10 adjournment, didn't you?

11 A. No. I didn't want an adjournment, for a start. But

12 what I did was copy and paste these into different areas

13 for demonstrations. The files in total were kept.

14 Q. You must have known, Dr Wright, that that was improper?

15 A. No, at that stage, everyone was telling me that there

16 was no purpose of these and we wouldn't get them in.

17 That's why I did the demonstrations. I did

18 the demonstrations to show how little teeny weeny

19 changes and how important it was, so I structured

20 a whole lot of demonstrations to show just how critical

21 these little tiny tweaks were and that you couldn't

22 guess them.”

I agree with the Developers that in that passage of evidence, Dr Wright was doing his best to avoid the point and, in essence, not telling the truth.

The result of this deletion of data is that the Court has no information as to what Dr Wright did with the so-called White Paper LaTeX Files at any time before 17 November 2023.

Second, the Maths (OLD) folder itself was obviously relevant. However, Dr Wright had actively sought to hide it, saying that all folders other than the ‘Bitcoin’ folder related only to his personal and academic interests. Confronted with this point on Day 15, Dr Wright seemed to regret disclosing the Maths (OLD) folder at all and to pray in aid his deleted folders, before contending that he was demonstrating Overleaf to his solicitors (a point to which it is necessary to return later):

“149:15 Q. Can we go to page 8, please, at 19.2.5, which I know you

16 glanced at earlier {E/24/8}. We can see that, in

17 the second sentence:

18 "Dr Wright instructs me that the only relevant or

19 potentially relevant material hosted on his Overleaf

20 account is the material in a folder entitled 'Bitcoin'

21 did ... and that the other material hosted on

22 Dr Wright's Overleaf account relates to academic and

23 personal interests post-dating 2020 that are not

24 relevant to these proceedings."

25 Right? That's what you told her?

150: 1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And that wasn't true, was it?

3 A. No, I believe it's true. We've disclosed other

4 material, including stuff to do with CookBook, etc, but

5 my university stuff, the work on Teranode, etc, I don't

6 believe is relevant.

7 Q. The Maths (OLD) folder contained -- didn't only contain

8 material relating to your academic and personal

9 interests, did it?

10 A. Only because I copied into the wrong folder.

11 Q. It contained material that was directly relevant to your

12 creation of the White Paper LaTeX files, right?

13 A. No, it didn't. It had where I loaded, on the 17th,

14 files from a different directory so that I could

15 demonstrate the changes. That is directly loaded on

16 the 17th. As you already know, I had meetings with my

17 solicitors demonstrating Overleaf and those files, so

18 they had to exist before the 17th. They were there at

19 my house.”

Dr Wright was challenged on his inadvertent disclosure of the Maths (OLD) project:

“190: 5 Q. Now, we know that it was inserted inadvertently by you

6 because we see that at {M1/2/153}. This is a letter

7 from Shoosmiths of 1 February 2024. 2(c):

8 "We understand from our client that the content of

9 the 'Maths (OLD)' project was inadvertently put into

10 this folder by our client."

11 Do you see that?

12 A. That's not what it's saying. It was a copy of the --

13 the thing. If you're saying a redaction, that's

14 a different thing. So I'm --

15 Q. The only Maths (OLD) project-related file that we

16 received, when you produced materials to us on

17 22 January, was that json file that I've just taken you

18 to?

19 A. I've no idea. I didn't actually open the file. KLD

20 came out, I clicked the link, we downloaded it, I gave

21 it to them. That's all I know.

22 Q. "We understand from our client that the content of

23 the 'Maths (OLD)' project was inadvertently put into

24 this folder by our client."

25 Right? It was you?

191: 1 A. No, that's not the downloaded file. The Maths (OLD)

2 file, what we're talking about, is Overleaf.

3 I inadvertently copied the Bitcoin stuff into

4 the Maths (OLD). That's what that there is describing.

5 Q. It's talking about the opposite. It's about content of

6 the Maths (OLD) project inadvertently being put into

7 something, right?

8 A. No, not at all. The download was done by either Stroz

9 or KLD at my house when we clicked on the file, and they

10 captured it.

11 Q. Now, if we --

12 A. I had no interaction with that process.

13 Q. If we hadn't immediately spotted the existence of

14 the project json file in relation to the Maths (OLD)

15 project in your Bitcoin folder, we would never have

16 known of all of the changes that you had made to

17 the White Paper LaTeX files, would we?

18 A. As I said, they were all part of the demonstration

19 process, so all that happened was I clicked the download

20 and all that comes across.

21 Q. So when saying that you had inserted it inadvertently,

22 what that actually means is that you had intended to

23 suppress that file from disclosure to us, right?

24 A. Not at all.”

As Counsel for the Developers submitted, these were evasive answers but they do not detract from the points that (a) I had ordered these data to be disclosed; (b) either Dr Wright did not make any attempt to find out from Overleaf whether these data existed or, (c) he knew these data existed and did not mean to disclose them.

Third, these data show that Dr Wright’s four witness statements presented a profoundly misleading picture that all he had done was make “minor corrections to address typographical errors in the published form of the Bitcoin White Paper”.

Fourth, Dr Wright had lied about the reason why the White Paper LaTeX Files had not been included in his disclosure. He had not (indeed could not have) received the advice that he alleges from Ontier. Moreover, Dr Wright sought to abuse legal professional privilege as a way of avoiding disclosure of damaging information. Thus, Dr Wright’s BitcoinSN.tex file was first created by Dr Wright in a subfolder of Maths (OLD) entitled “ZZZ Notes” {L21/16.1/92}. It was then moved to a subfolder entitled “Test” {L21/16.1/101}, before being moved to the “TC” subfolder {L21/16.1/102}. Dr Wright subsequently claimed privilege over the content of the ZZZ Notes and Test folders. As a result the origin and initial content of BitcoinSN.tex was concealed from COPA and the Developers until 16 February 2024 (midway through the trial), when Shoosmiths recognised that a waiver/withdrawal of the alleged privilege was essential{M/3/15}.

In the circumstances (which include all the evidence about the LaTeX files), I agree with the Developers that the only reasonable inference is that Dr Wright lied about these matters (and sought to abuse legal professional privilege) to conceal the fact that the White Paper LaTeX Files were a recent creation.