Kleiman v. Wright Bitcoin Inventor Trial Postponed to November 2021

A new date for the billion-dollar bitcoin trial involving Craig Wright and plaintiff Ira Kleiman has again been rescheduled, this time for November 2021.

May 10, 2021, | AtoZ Markets The District Court for the Southern District of Florida has again postponed a hearing in the case of the self-proclaimed creator of bitcoin Craig Wright and the family of his ex-partner Dave Kleiman.

The parties filed a joint motion to extend the time limits for the preliminary proceedings. This is not the first change in the date: the meeting was originally scheduled for July 6, 2020, after several postponements, it was postponed until October 13, and then postponed to 2021.

Judge Beth Bloom has extended the deadline for the submission of evidence to August 31, and the pre-trial to September 14. She postponed the meeting itself until November 1.

According to the document, on May 11, the court will consider the status of the case.

As a reminder, in February 2018, Ira Kleiman, brother of the deceased computer forensic scientist and mathematician Dave Kleiman, filed a lawsuit against Craig Wright.

Read also: Craig Wright Slammed in Court for Presenting Fake Documents

The plaintiff accused the latter of embezzling 1.1 million BTC, allegedly belonging to Dave Kleiman, who is associated with the creation of bitcoin.

In August 2019, the Court of the Southern District of Florida ordered to recover 500,000 BTC from Wright. After the self-proclaimed Satoshi Nakamoto refused to participate in a settlement agreement, proceedings were resumed.

In May 2020, 145 early Bitcoin addresses signed a message accusing Wright of fraud and perjury. He claimed that these addresses belong to him.

In June 2020, attorneys for Wright and Kleiman presented a list of 36 witnesses in the case. Among the experts, they included the early Bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen and the preacher of cryptophilosophy Andreas Antonopoulos.

In September 2020, the court rejected Craig Wright's petition for summary judgment. Earlier, he stated that the statute of limitations had expired, and the plaintiff could not prove an oral agreement.

Think we missed something? Let us know in the comment section below.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *