Home Latest News “I’m Spartacus! – yet another person claiming to be ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’, creator of Bitcoin”

“I’m Spartacus! – yet another person claiming to be ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’, creator of Bitcoin”

On the sixteenth anniversary of ‘White Paper Day’[1], 31 October 2024, a press conference took place in London, having been trailed the day prior[2] and attracting many of the world’s media outlets to attend, including the BBC and the Financial Times. At the event, the press release tantalisingly promised; “After over a decade of speculation and mystery, the world will finally learn the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the elusive inventor of Bitcoin and the foundational Blockchain technology”. Tickets for the event reportedly sold for upwards of $540.

The press conference

What followed was 58-year-old Stephen Mollah and his associate Charles Anderson attempting to convince the gathered journalists that Mollah is ‘Satoshi’ in a manner said by the FT[3] to have been “in equal parts hilarious and heart-breaking”. A variety of media outlets have indicated scepticism at the latest claim, some pointing out that Mollah and Anderson are currently facing criminal charges of fraud via a private prosecution with a trial due to take place in November 2025[4]. Another media outlet described the event as “bizarre, unprofessional and unlikely to convince anyone…”[5]

The latest ‘Satoshi’

The legal history of individuals claiming to be the creator of Bitcoin, “Satoshi Nakamoto”, includes significant legal challenges as to the veracity of such claims, noting that the potential for economic gain (or indeed, loss to another) is astronomical. Estimates place the size of Satoshi Nakamoto’s holdings at between 600,000 BTC and 1.1 million BTC, or up to almost £60 billion at current rates.

In the case of Craig Wright, the High Court ruled that he was not the creator of Bitcoin and had lied and forged documents to support his claim[6]. This resulted in a package of remedies, including anti-suit injunctions. Mellor J took the remarkable step of giving short ex tempore declarations at the end of the five-week trial in March 2024, including that Wright was not the creator of Bitcoin, before producing a meticulous and lengthy written judgment some months later. Tangentially to the Wright case the issue of copyright infringement in the file format for the Bitcoin system was examined. The court was sceptical about whether the file format was an intellectual creation, but decided that this issue required a factual investigation, possibly including expert evidence, and detailed argument.

As to why the identity of ‘Satoshi’ (and it is of note that the White Paper repeatedly uses the term “we” so there is a belief amongst the community that several contributors may have worked on the project together[7]) is important, the primary argument would be access to the many BTC wallets connected to him or her.

Publicity, fame, power and huge wealth are all drivers, and indeed publicity may be adverse as well, hence the decision of ‘Satoshi’ to avoid the limelight for sixteen years. Were ‘Satoshi’ to sell off their BTC holdings, they would be the 20^th wealthiest person in the world, according to the BBC[8].

In a recent HBO film ‘Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery’ the filmmakers confronted Peter Todd, a Canadian Bitcoin developer and crypto-asset expert, claiming that he is ‘Satoshi’. Mr Todd strongly denied this, and indeed has gone into hiding as a result. Prior to this, in 2014, an article in Newsweek identified Dorian Nakamoto, a Japanese-American man living in California as ‘Satoshi’. But he denied it and the claim has largely been debunked[9]. Clearly, there is a double-edged sword to notoriety and this can be contrasted between those identified as ‘Satoshi’ and those seeking to prove they are ‘Satoshi’.

The treatment of Crypto-assets in English law

The English courts have shown a readiness to grapple with lofty questions over the provenance of Bitcoin, alongside a rapidly developing cannon of case law as to the status and ways in which the courts can deal with crypto assets generally.

In 2019 the senior judiciary published the groundbreaking ‘Legal Statement on the status of Crypto assets and Smart Contracts’[10] written by Sir Geoffrey Vos, (then Chancellor of the High Court and now Master of the Rolls) who has repeatedly stated a keen interest in evolving fields such as crypto-assets and AI and their interface with domestic law. Whether English law treats a crypto asset as property ultimately depends on the nature of the asset and the rules of the ecosystem in which it exists. Paragraphs 12-15 of the statement conclude that, although novel, crypto assets typically have the indicia of property. Whilst English law historically recognised only two classes of property: things in possession (choses in possession) and things in action (choses in action), Sir Geoffrey noted that “they are not disqualified from being property either because they can be regarded as pure information, or because it might not be possible to classify them as being things in possession or in action”. He went on to note that this conclusion “may be expected to have far reaching consequences”.

One might note that the Crown Court has had to grapple with the issue of whether such ‘assets’ are ‘realisable property’ for several years in a rather more prosaic sense. Notably the case of R v Teresko (unreported, Kingston Crown Court, 11 October 2017) set a match to the touch paper on this issue apropos of the powers to seize and convert such ‘assets’ within the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (‘PoCA’)[11]. Reflecting the approach taken by the civil courts in respect of freezing orders, Mr. Justice Fordham in DPP v. Briedis^{^[12]}, an unopposed application for a ‘Property Freezing Order’ under Part 5 of POCA, was “… satisfied that crypto currency, as crypto assets, fall within the wide definition of “property” in section 316(4)(c) (“other intangible … property”), especially when viewed in the light of the purpose of these statutory powers. It would be a serious lacuna if crypto assets fell outside the reach of this statutory scheme.” The judge cited the Legal Statement itself in support of his conclusion on the definition of ‘property’ for the purposes of Part 5. The definition in s.316(4)(c) is the same as that which is applied generally in POCA (e.g., in ss.84(1)(c) and 340(9)(c)) and so Fordham J’s conclusion is likely to be adopted more widely to the provisions of POCA dealing with restraint and confiscation orders and to offences under POCA of laundering the proceeds of crime.

The Fraud case against Mollah & Anderson

It will not have been missed that Messrs Mollah and Anderson are facing serious accusations and will face a trial by jury next year. That case is being conducted on a private prosecution basis and involves an alleged fraud concerning 165,000 BTC, or roughly £9bn at current value. Whether the timing and decision to hold this press conference has any impact tactically on that trial will become clear later. It is of note that the powers of the Crown Court do not include declaratory relief, but arguments over the impact on actions by a party outside court are not uncommon.

Comment

Within only a few years, the legal treatment of crypto assets – not least in terms of their theft, recovery, ownership disputes and provenance/creation – has gone from uncharted territory to a rather more common diet of the English courts. Judges, lawyers and litigants have started to shape the law and policy, notwithstanding the Law Commission has urged parliamentary intervention too, and this is belatedly happening with the introduction of the Property (Digital Assets etc.) Bill in September 2024[13].

The risks of fitting existing, traditional systems to new and perhaps nebulous issues are axiomatic, but the English legal system has arguably been a leader in this field. Whether traditional public prosecution bodies have an appetite for the risk that is inherent in this newer field of law is a different question.

It is self-evident that the public appetite for answers to a mystery such as “who is Satoshi Nakamoto?” will be unlikely to abate any time soon, though one would question whether a man/woman/collective worth billions of pounds would need to charge for tickets to their own press conference.

Edmonds Marshall McMahon has a proven track record in this field, both in the civil and criminal spheres – although arguably the distinction between the two is otiose in some crypto-asset cases. EMM stands ready to advise the victims of crypto fraud and those who are interested in exploring private prosecutions, as is clearly likely to be an expanding area in the future.

Joe Nahal-Macdonald

20 November 2024