Craig Wright is known for claiming that he created Bitcoin under the name Satoshi Nakamoto. In 2024, the High Court of England and Wales ruled that this was untrue. Later proceedings addressed a different question: whether Wright had breached an injunction against certain lawsuits and threats.
Satoshi Nakamoto is the name under which Bitcoin was created. Wright’s claim to be that person was addressed in COPA v Wright; COPA stands for Crypto Open Patent Alliance. Judge Mellor announced the result on March 14, 2024. The judgment dated May 20, 2024 then explained the reasons. These were not opposing decisions, but a conclusion followed by its detailed reasoning. [1]
Paragraph 7 records four conclusions: Wright did not author the whitepaper, the introductory document describing Bitcoin; he was not the person using the name Satoshi Nakamoto between 2008 and 2011; he did not create the Bitcoin system; and he did not author the initial software versions. The result was broader than a failure to demonstrate a public cryptographic signature. The court assessed evidence of identity and authorship. [1]
In COPA v Wright, the judge found repeated lies and forged documents offered to support the claimed identity. That carries a different weight from disbelief in an online discussion. It is also important to name the proceeding accurately: these were findings in a civil identity dispute, not themselves a separate criminal conviction for forgery. [1]
Paragraphs 475 to 477 provide a concrete example. The court examined LaTeX files—source material for typesetting a document—and their editing history in Overleaf. It found that they were recently created. Resembling the whitepaper did not make them the author’s original working files. Their history mattered alongside witness testimony, rather than merely a label saying “original”. [1]
The story did not end there. An order dated July 16, 2024 prohibited defined lawsuits and threats based on Wright’s claimed rights concerning Bitcoin. The December judgment explains the scope of that injunction. It restricted particular legal actions, rather than banning everyone from talking about Bitcoin. From here, the issue was no longer just who created the system: it was also whether Wright obeyed an existing court order. [2]
On December 19, 2024, the court found all five grounds of COPA’s application proved to the criminal standard of proof, meaning beyond reasonable doubt. The issue was contempt of court: in this case, acting contrary to its order. The court found that new proceedings and threats breached the July injunction. This was neither a new search for the real Satoshi Nakamoto nor a separate forgery judgment. [2]
The order dated December 20, 2024 imposed a 12-month prison sentence, suspended until December 20, 2026, provided Wright did not breach the July order again. That condition is part of the decision, not a minor detail. Mentioning a prison term alone can therefore mislead. This account does not assert immediate imprisonment or verify Wright’s later compliance: it explains what that particular order required. [3]
The ruling rejected Wright’s claim; it did not establish who else was Satoshi. Winning the case did not give COPA or another party control of the network. Bitcoin.org describes a network that nobody owns and whose users choose their software. Nodes—computers that check transactions and blocks—apply the rules they run. The creator’s identity is a historical question; today’s transaction validity does not depend on a purported author’s personal instructions. [4]
For the clearest picture, read this entry together with Jihan Wu, Pieter Wuille, Satoshi Nakamoto. The reverse links also lead from Jihan Wu, Pieter Wuille.