Craig Wright, who calls himself Satoshi Nakamoto, is facing sentencing for forfeiture of intellectual property. After losing hope in a previous trial, Wright asked for a new one. However, it is still fighting hard to get the title of Bitcoin creator of the millennial cryptocurrency. However, the circumstances of the case against David Kleiman and the Australian computer programmer's estate suggest no possibility of a new trial. On Monday, a Florida judge denied a request for a new trial.
Craig Wright Violates Court Order
On Monday, Judge Beth Bloom, who presided over the sequestered intellectual property case, denied Craig Wright's request. The request was filed by attorneys for Arakleman, asking for a new trial. According to Bloom, allowing a new trial would mean violating a court order while avoiding talk about the problematic relationship between Klayman and his brother.
Through Kleiman's attorney, Craig Wright tried to convince the jury to take a negative view of the company. Kleiman also claimed that the self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto pointed to the company as a failed initiative by his ex-wife and Dave in soliciting software development from the government.
Trials and judgments
The five-week trial into the twisted relationship between Wright and the Kleiman family was held. Notably, some parts of the case also involved legal issues Wright faced with the Australian Taxation Office. However, all but one of the rulings were in favor of the computer programmer.
In fact, Wright was found guilty by a jury of intellectual property theft. Under the verdict, Wright was ordered to pay W&K a substantial sum of $100 million.
It is also noteworthy that the jury's verdict never addressed the topic and claims regarding the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto.
Why did the court refuse to reopen the case?
The Florida court denied the request because the plaintiffs' reasons for seeking a new trial were neither convincing nor sufficient. Following the denial, Kleiman's lead attorney, Wil Friedman, emphasized that their next step would be to appeal Judge Bloom's ruling. In addition, the attorney mentioned that the $100 million fee could be raised to $140 million once Kleiman's increase in pre-judgment interest is granted.