United States Federal Court Says Craig Wright Attempted A Lawsuit Dismissal Over Billions In BTC

According to a United States Federal Court, well-known cryptocurrency expert and self-proclaimed inventor of BTC, Craig Wright, did attempt to dismiss a lawsuit against him that concerned how he misappropriated billions in bitcoin from his former business partner’s estate. The lawsuit was filed by Kleiman Ira on behalf of his brother, Dave Kleiman and his estate. Dave died in 2013 after a long battle with MRSA.

Lawsuit Against Craig Wright

According to the lawsuit, Wright schemed to seize billions in bitcoins that belong to Dave Kleiman. Wright also allegedly seized some intellectual property related to bitcoin. Ira demands $3.9 billion in BTC and compensation for infringement of intellectual property.

Wright has always been a controversial cryptographer. In April, he filed a motion for the case against him by Kleiman to be dismissed. Unfortunately, the court denied his motion to dismiss. This is according to a court document that was filed in the southern district of Florida on Thursday. It showed that most of the counts in the motion by Wright have been denied. Part of the order was as follows:

“The court finds that the plaintiffs have alleged a conversion claim. The complaint alleges that the defendant converted no less than 300,000 bitcoins when Dave died by sending them to different international trusts. This act was unauthorized and it deprived the plaintiffs of the BTC. The claim of conversion, which was count 1, was not dismissed by the court.”

Another part of the document stated that the court has been unable to determine what exact number of BTCs were seized but the estate claims that it was at least 300,000 and its forked assets. Wright also requested that another count of constructive fraud be dismissed but this count was also denied by the court.
The only counts that were dismissed were count 3 and 4.

The dismissed counts were related to misappropriation of trade secrets. This dismissal was approved because the three years statute of limitations has been exceeded. The order shows that the plaintiffs knew about Wrights conducts as at April 22 2014 and so they should have filed the suit at the time. Part of the statement was as follows:

“Even if the plaintiff didn’t know the extent of the harm caused by the defendant, they should have requested an ATO audit as soon as they learned about the misappropriation of trade secrets. This is an exercise of reasonable diligence.”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.