Inconsistencies Found in Craig Wright’s MYOB Bitcoin Transactions

COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 38 of 42. 36. MYOB accounting screenshots (Reliance Documents) {ID_004077} / {L5/150/1}, plus ID_004078 and ID_004079. 704. {ID_004077} presents as one of a series of disclosed screenshots from an MYOB accounting database apparently recording a series of transactions of Dr Wright, dated to 2009, connected to mining bitcoin and accounting for it in relation to Wright International Investments Limited, Seychelles. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 705. The accounting entries have been backdated. MYOB software allows accounting records to be created with any date selected by the user. It is possible, and has at all times been possible, to create identical records to those shown in these Reliance Documents by simple entry and manual backdating, and freely to populate information within the record system. [PM7 [33-45]]. 706. The accounts are dated as if from 2009-2010 [PM9 [23]]. However, the accounting entries ascribe high monetary values to bitcoin which are not consistent with the actual value of bitcoin at the purported date of the entries. 707. The relevant accounting audit logs demonstrate that the entries were inputted on 6-7 March 2020 and edited during that time, so that they are not authentic to their purported dates. [PM21 [59-65]]. 708. The accounting records refer to an invalid ABN (Australian Business Number). [PM7 [50-55]]. 709. The document contains screenshots of information contained within an accounting database that was included incidentally with Dr Wright’s disclosure by reason of being embedded within a zip file containing other documents. It was not disclosed with its own ID number. 710. Each version of the accounting software in which these records were created is freely downloadable from the MYOB website. [PM7 [17]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 711. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 712. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. as supposedly evidencing transactions featuring within his narrative), contrary to fact. 713. The session audit logs associated with this document indicate that the person using the database attempted to log in with the usernames “Administrator” and craig@panopticrypt.com in quick succession. Craig@panopticrypt.com is Dr Wright. [PM7 [64]]. 714. Dr Wright has chosen to rely on non-native screenshot versions of his accounting database. Dr Wright has not chosen to rely on native documents. 715. The only corresponding native document disclosed in these proceedings is a file that has been backdated. 716. The backdated native document was not disclosed as part of Dr Wright’s list, nor was it described or given a date. It was disclosed incidentally, buried within a zip file within a zip file within an attachment to an otherwise blank email [Madden main report, paragraph 166.d.]. It is to be inferred that Dr Wright did not intend to disclose the native file, but intended for the native file to remain unavailable. 17. The document was created in the course of litigation between Dr Wright and others to be deployed in that litigation in support of his claims, as they have been deployed in this litigation. 718. The company Wright International Investments Limited was an inactive shelf company which did not operate before 2014 when it was purchased by Dr Wright. It could not therefore have been responsible for the accounts entered into these records, as Dr Wright must have known. 719. Since service of the Madden Report, Dr Wright has altered his position in respect of this document and has put forward an explanation by way of references to purported facts that are implausible and do not explain the indicia of tampering. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 720. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright sought to explain away the evidence that he had entered the relevant transactions into the MYOB system in March 2020. He had to acknowledge Mr Madden’s finding that an myox file attached to an email he had sent to Steve Shadders on 17 April 2020 produced audit logs showing that from 6 March 2020 he had made entries apparently corresponding to the transactions in the screenshots. He claimed that an unnamed person had organised an extract from the online MYOB accounting system in a QIF file and that he had then transferred entries from that file to a local version of MYOB. He said that he had done this item-by-item, in order to allow a listing of his Bitcoin holdings to be produced thereafter. 721. In his oral evidence at trial, Dr Wright claimed that the screenshots on which he relied (including {ID_004077}) had not been affected by the entries he had made on the system from 6 March 2020. He stated that they had been produced by his former solicitors, Ontier, who he claimed had been provided with login details for the live version of the MYOB system. He said that they had been provided with these login details in late 2019 and that they had produced the screenshots before he made the entries which were reflected in the logs produced from the myox file. See: {Day3/114:12} to {Day3/128:9}. He was categorical that Ontier had received the login details in late 2019 {Day3/127:10} and produced the screenshots before 6 March 2020 {Day3/128:2}. He maintained this position on Day 4, despite indications in related screenshots that the set had been produced on 9 March 2020: {Day4/4:3} to {Day5/7:16}. He reiterated it on Day 5, in the face of Ontier having told Shoosmiths that they first received the login details on 9 March 2020 and took the screenshots over the following days: {Day5/42:16} to {Day5/45:9}. 722. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest, for the following reasons: 722.1. His claim that the screenshots were taken before 6 March 2020, so that they could not reflect the entries he made on the MYOB system (as reflected in the logs produced from the myox file), has been shown to be a lie. The information from Ontier, a reputable firm of solicitors, is not contradicted by any reliable documentary or other evidence and should be taken as true. 722.2. The fact that Dr Wright later (during trial) chose to create a further forged document to try to undermine the information from Ontier, as discussed in Section 40 of this Schedule, compounds his dishonesty. 722.3. The natural conclusion to be drawn from the fact that Dr Wright made entries reflecting the transactions in the screenshots on 6/7 March 2020 and then provided login details to allow his solicitors to take the screenshots on 9 March 2020 is that the two events are related. He made the entries so that they would show up on the later screenshots. 722.4. Dr Wright’s account of having made the entries in a local version of MYOB in order to enable work to be done to present his Bitcoin holdings to the US Court makes no sense, even on its own terms. If his account were true and all the entries were available on the live version of the MYOB system, why would he not give access to that system to those representing him in the US proceedings? 722.5. Dr Wright’s account has no supporting evidence. He cannot identify the person who supposedly produced the QIF file, nor has he produced the file itself. 723. COPA also relied on a further aspect of the saga concerning these MYOB records. Dr Wright tried to provide replacement MYOB records by directing his expert, Dr Placks, to MYOB databases containing records which supposedly supported aspects of his claim (including a supposed entry for purchase of the bitcoin.org domain hosting) {Placks1 at {I/1/32}, [9.15 to 9.42]}. However, Mr Madden showed in his Second Report (see {Appendix PM42 at {H/209/7}, especially [31ff]}) that the “new” database records were forged in May / June 2023 – in the course of this litigation – by person(s) using the email addresses of Dr Wright and his current wife (Ramona Ang). This finding was agreed by Dr Placks in the first joint statement {Q/2/9}. 724. Dr Wright tried to answer this point in Wright11 by claiming that both Mr Madden and Dr Placks had failed to understand how MYOB works, and that Mr Madden’s findings of entries being associated with very recent versions of MYOB software were explained by system updates. This evidence did not account for all Mr Madden’s findings, because (for example) he had found clear evidence of backdating of entries by simply producing a log showing entries in the order in which they had been committed to the database. Mr Madden explained this clearly in his fifth report, produced during trial {G/9/4} – {G/9/10}. Dr Wright’s account was also plainly flawed on its own terms, since if system updates caused previous entries misleadingly to be associated with the most recent version of software, all entries would naturally show the same version. When crossexamined on these points, Dr Wright insisted upon his version, asserting features of MYOB for which he had no supportive evidence {Day15/20:16} – {Day15/43:25}. Quite apart from all the expert evidence ranged against him, it would be very surprising if accounting software caused such misleading and confusing entries to be committed to logs as he suggests MYOB routinely does. 725. In my judgment, Dr Wright gave Dr Placks access to MYOB databases which themselves showed clear signs of forgery. Those substitute records are addressed in more detail in the main body of the Judgment. Conclusion 726. In view of COPA’s submissions in this section and my own analysis in section 1, I can only agree with COPA’s position on these MYOB accounting records. None of the explanations gathered in Appendix 1 to Dr Wright’s Closing are persuasive. The documents were plainly forged by Dr Wright, as were the replacement records provided by him to Dr Placks. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 38 of 42. COPA v. Wright, Court Filing, retrieved on January 29, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 38 of 42. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here here 36. MYOB accounting screenshots (Reliance Documents) {ID_004077} / {L5/150/1}, plus ID_004078 and ID_004079. 704. {ID_004077} presents as one of a series of disclosed screenshots from an MYOB accounting database apparently recording a series of transactions of Dr Wright, dated to 2009, connected to mining bitcoin and accounting for it in relation to Wright International Investments Limited, Seychelles. (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery (a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery 705. The accounting entries have been backdated. MYOB software allows accounting records to be created with any date selected by the user. It is possible, and has at all times been possible, to create identical records to those shown in these Reliance Documents by simple entry and manual backdating, and freely to populate information within the record system. [PM7 [33-45]]. 706. The accounts are dated as if from 2009-2010 [PM9 [23]]. However, the accounting entries ascribe high monetary values to bitcoin which are not consistent with the actual value of bitcoin at the purported date of the entries. 707. The relevant accounting audit logs demonstrate that the entries were inputted on 6-7 March 2020 and edited during that time, so that they are not authentic to their purported dates. [PM21 [59-65]]. 708. The accounting records refer to an invalid ABN (Australian Business Number). [PM7 [50-55]]. 709. The document contains screenshots of information contained within an accounting database that was included incidentally with Dr Wright’s disclosure by reason of being embedded within a zip file containing other documents. It was not disclosed with its own ID number. 710. Each version of the accounting software in which these records were created is freely downloadable from the MYOB website. [PM7 [17]]. (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility (b) COPA’s Reasons for Inferring Dr Wright’s Knowledge / Responsibility 711. Dr Wright has positively asserted that this is a document on which he primarily relies as supporting his claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto. 712. The effect of the tampering is to make the document appear to be supportive of Dr Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto (i.e. as supposedly evidencing transactions featuring within his narrative), contrary to fact. 713. The session audit logs associated with this document indicate that the person using the database attempted to log in with the usernames “Administrator” and craig@panopticrypt.com in quick succession. Craig@panopticrypt.com is Dr Wright. [PM7 [64]]. 714. Dr Wright has chosen to rely on non-native screenshot versions of his accounting database. Dr Wright has not chosen to rely on native documents. 715. The only corresponding native document disclosed in these proceedings is a file that has been backdated. 716. The backdated native document was not disclosed as part of Dr Wright’s list, nor was it described or given a date. It was disclosed incidentally, buried within a zip file within a zip file within an attachment to an otherwise blank email [Madden main report, paragraph 166.d.]. It is to be inferred that Dr Wright did not intend to disclose the native file, but intended for the native file to remain unavailable. 17. The document was created in the course of litigation between Dr Wright and others to be deployed in that litigation in support of his claims, as they have been deployed in this litigation. 718. The company Wright International Investments Limited was an inactive shelf company which did not operate before 2014 when it was purchased by Dr Wright. It could not therefore have been responsible for the accounts entered into these records, as Dr Wright must have known. 719. Since service of the Madden Report, Dr Wright has altered his position in respect of this document and has put forward an explanation by way of references to purported facts that are implausible and do not explain the indicia of tampering. (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal (c) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal 720. In Appendix B to Wright11, Dr Wright sought to explain away the evidence that he had entered the relevant transactions into the MYOB system in March 2020. He had to acknowledge Mr Madden’s finding that an myox file attached to an email he had sent to Steve Shadders on 17 April 2020 produced audit logs showing that from 6 March 2020 he had made entries apparently corresponding to the transactions in the screenshots. He claimed that an unnamed person had organised an extract from the online MYOB accounting system in a QIF file and that he had then transferred entries from that file to a local version of MYOB. He said that he had done this item-by-item, in order to allow a listing of his Bitcoin holdings to be produced thereafter. 721. In his oral evidence at trial, Dr Wright claimed that the screenshots on which he relied (including {ID_004077}) had not been affected by the entries he had made on the system from 6 March 2020. He stated that they had been produced by his former solicitors, Ontier, who he claimed had been provided with login details for the live version of the MYOB system. He said that they had been provided with these login details in late 2019 and that they had produced the screenshots before he made the entries which were reflected in the logs produced from the myox file. See: {Day3/114:12} to {Day3/128:9}. He was categorical that Ontier had received the login details in late 2019 {Day3/127:10} and produced the screenshots before 6 March 2020 {Day3/128:2}. He maintained this position on Day 4, despite indications in related screenshots that the set had been produced on 9 March 2020: {Day4/4:3} to {Day5/7:16}. He reiterated it on Day 5, in the face of Ontier having told Shoosmiths that they first received the login details on 9 March 2020 and took the screenshots over the following days: {Day5/42:16} to {Day5/45:9}. 722. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected as dishonest, for the following reasons: 722.1. His claim that the screenshots were taken before 6 March 2020, so that they could not reflect the entries he made on the MYOB system (as reflected in the logs produced from the myox file), has been shown to be a lie. The information from Ontier, a reputable firm of solicitors, is not contradicted by any reliable documentary or other evidence and should be taken as true. 722.2. The fact that Dr Wright later (during trial) chose to create a further forged document to try to undermine the information from Ontier, as discussed in Section 40 of this Schedule, compounds his dishonesty. 722.3. The natural conclusion to be drawn from the fact that Dr Wright made entries reflecting the transactions in the screenshots on 6/7 March 2020 and then provided login details to allow his solicitors to take the screenshots on 9 March 2020 is that the two events are related. He made the entries so that they would show up on the later screenshots. 722.4. Dr Wright’s account of having made the entries in a local version of MYOB in order to enable work to be done to present his Bitcoin holdings to the US Court makes no sense, even on its own terms. If his account were true and all the entries were available on the live version of the MYOB system, why would he not give access to that system to those representing him in the US proceedings? 722.5. Dr Wright’s account has no supporting evidence. He cannot identify the person who supposedly produced the QIF file, nor has he produced the file itself. 723. COPA also relied on a further aspect of the saga concerning these MYOB records. Dr Wright tried to provide replacement MYOB records by directing his expert, Dr Placks, to MYOB databases containing records which supposedly supported aspects of his claim (including a supposed entry for purchase of the bitcoin.org domain hosting) {Placks1 at {I/1/32} , [9.15 to 9.42]}. However, Mr Madden showed in his Second Report (see {Appendix PM42 at {H/209/7} , especially [31ff]}) that the “new” database records were forged in May / June 2023 – in the course of this litigation – by person(s) using the email addresses of Dr Wright and his current wife (Ramona Ang). This finding was agreed by Dr Placks in the first joint statement {Q/2/9} . {I/1/32} {H/209/7} {Q/2/9} 724. Dr Wright tried to answer this point in Wright11 by claiming that both Mr Madden and Dr Placks had failed to understand how MYOB works, and that Mr Madden’s findings of entries being associated with very recent versions of MYOB software were explained by system updates. This evidence did not account for all Mr Madden’s findings, because (for example) he had found clear evidence of backdating of entries by simply producing a log showing entries in the order in which they had been committed to the database. Mr Madden explained this clearly in his fifth report, produced during trial {G/9/4} – {G/9/10} . Dr Wright’s account was also plainly flawed on its own terms, since if system updates caused previous entries misleadingly to be associated with the most recent version of software, all entries would naturally show the same version. When crossexamined on these points, Dr Wright insisted upon his version, asserting features of MYOB for which he had no supportive evidence {Day15/20:16} – {Day15/43:25}. Quite apart from all the expert evidence ranged against him, it would be very surprising if accounting software caused such misleading and confusing entries to be committed to logs as he suggests MYOB routinely does. {G/9/4} – {G/9/10} 725. In my judgment, Dr Wright gave Dr Placks access to MYOB databases which themselves showed clear signs of forgery. Those substitute records are addressed in more detail in the main body of the Judgment. Conclusion Conclusion 726. In view of COPA’s submissions in this section and my own analysis in section 1, I can only agree with COPA’s position on these MYOB accounting records. None of the explanations gathered in Appendix 1 to Dr Wright’s Closing are persuasive. The documents were plainly forged by Dr Wright, as were the replacement records provided by him to Dr Placks. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on January 29, 2024, judiciary.uk is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. judiciary.uk judiciary.uk