A dismissal request submitted by crypto entrepreneur Craig Wright, regarding his ongoing legal battle against Ira Kleiman, has been rejected in part by a US federal court.
Wright has found himself subject to a lawsuit spearheaded by Kleiman, sister of former crypto developer David Kleiman. She has accused Wright of stealing up to “1.1 million” Bitcoins following the latter’s death.
Previously, it had been speculated that either Wright or Kleiman may have been the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto. Whilst there isn’t a great deal to substantiate these claims as such, according to the document detailing the lawsuit, “Dave and Craig began to speak about ways to use peer-to-peer sharing to solve issues in cryptography.”
The document also details how “the Amended Complaint alleges that for the next several years, Dave and Craig worked together in developing Bitcoin, and that through their collaboration, they mined over a million Bitcoins together.”
Kleiman died on 26th April 2013, and it was at this time that Wright contacted Kleiman’s estate offering his help to dispose of the Bitcoin fortune. He did so in part, but did not return the funds, the family says. In an amended lawsuit supported by Judge Beth Bloom, a figure of 300,000 BTC is now circulating.
The news of Wright’s appeal for dismissal being denied comes after a court document was published online on 27th December. The document reads, “The Court has considered the Motion, the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
It goes on to detail how “Craig used the private keys that Dave and Craig shared to move the Bitcoins out of their wallets and then claimed to own the Bitcoins really owned by W&K and/or Dave by creating a series of fraudulent contracts and documents. Craig then moved the stolen Bitcoin into trusts only known and controlled by him for use in making large trades for his Australian business.”
(Note: W&K is David Kleiman’s Info and Defence Research LLC business).
The details of the case are extensive; however, in the end, Judge Bloom has ruled that “Counts III and IV of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, ECF No. [33], are dismissed with prejudice,” but Wright still must answer to “Counts, I, II, V-IX.”
Furthermore, Wright must respond no later than 10th January 2019.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author should not be considered as financial advice. We do not give advice on financial products.