COPA v Wright, the identity issue – Day 9. 🧵
Now that Wright has been thoroughly cross-examined, we switch to his fact witnesses. These are:
* Ignatius Pang: a bioinformatician Wright met in 2007 and worked with at BDO and later Hotwire PE.
* Shoaib Yousuf: a cybersecurity specialist who met Wright in 2006 at Charles Sturt University. They founded a company together later, ostensibly to commercialize Wright's many ideas in the field of cybersecurity.
* Robert Jenkins: A businessman who met Wright in the late nineties, worked with him at Vodafone and has had discussions with him over the years.
They are all in Australia and will appear on videolink.
We already saw Yousuf and Jenkins witnessing in the Oslo trial in 2022, and they would say at most that he *could* be Satoshi, because he was smart and had many computers. I would expect a repeat of that today. Pang is less known; Wright has filed a "precursor whitepaper" with handwriting saying "Need to thank Ignatius Pang", which suggests Pang might claim to have been involved in some remote way without evidence.
We've gotten so used to one scandalous day after another, but I expect today to be calmer. Mostly because Wright will be quiet.
Now that Wright has been thoroughly cross-examined, we switch to his fact witnesses. These are:
* Ignatius Pang: a bioinformatician Wright met in 2007 and worked with at BDO and later Hotwire PE.
* Shoaib Yousuf: a cybersecurity specialist who met Wright in 2006 at Charles Sturt University. They founded a company together later, ostensibly to commercialize Wright's many ideas in the field of cybersecurity.
* Robert Jenkins: A businessman who met Wright in the late nineties, worked with him at Vodafone and has had discussions with him over the years.
They are all in Australia and will appear on videolink.
We already saw Yousuf and Jenkins witnessing in the Oslo trial in 2022, and they would say at most that he *could* be Satoshi, because he was smart and had many computers. I would expect a repeat of that today. Pang is less known; Wright has filed a "precursor whitepaper" with handwriting saying "Need to thank Ignatius Pang", which suggests Pang might claim to have been involved in some remote way without evidence.
We've gotten so used to one scandalous day after another, but I expect today to be calmer. Mostly because Wright will be quiet.
@Twentynothing00 goes into useful detail about the witnesses.
https://twitter.com/Twentynothing00/status/1757897011578212441
If you'd like to throw a few sats my way to tip me for my work, you can use norbert@walletofsatoshi.com or this QR code. Deeply appreciated. 
I got to hold the door for Lord Grabiner, who told me "good job". I'm seated now, and preparing for 10:30.
I don't see Wright here yet. Lots of free spectator seating. We are about to start.
Mellor enters, wishes us good morning.
C: Grabiner told us they do not wish to cross-examine 6 witnesses. Wuille, Rory, Trammell etc. We appreciate that. Then their evidence can't be disputed, but Wright made allegations against Rory, Trammell, Pearson, personal attacks. The consequence of no cross-examination is that Wright accepts he can't dispute their witness statements.
Mellor: You don't want […] to respond?
C: We would ask them to produce witness statements. It's not satisfactory for Wright to have added details that they should be able to deal with.
C: Grabiner told us they do not wish to cross-examine 6 witnesses. Wuille, Rory, Trammell etc. We appreciate that. Then their evidence can't be disputed, but Wright made allegations against Rory, Trammell, Pearson, personal attacks. The consequence of no cross-examination is that Wright accepts he can't dispute their witness statements.
Mellor: You don't want […] to respond?
C: We would ask them to produce witness statements. It's not satisfactory for Wright to have added details that they should be able to deal with.
G: About Wuille. If your Lordship has any questions about his witness statement, he's here. It might be interesting to hear the voice of a real developer of Bitcoin.
Grabiner: No good deed goes unpunished. Perfectly absurd. We have identified these 6 because we do not need to cross-examine them. We have no intention of putting points in closing [with no cross-examination]. As for the suggestion that you should hear what they have to say, respectfully it's inappropriate.
C: Nothing in response. No other housekeeping.
Grabiner (Gr): I want to call on Dr Pang. [mumbles]
Usher: Good morning, Dr Pang.
Pang (P): I can hear you clearly.
[Usher leads Pang through the oath as Pang holds up The Jerusalem Bible]
Mellor: Thank you, do sit down.
Gr: Good morning. I'm instructed on behalf of Wright. You have a screen in front of you. I'll ask for your witness statement to be shown on it. Can you confirm it's your witness statement?
P: It is.
Gr: Is that your signature?
P: Yes.
Gr: Is the content true?
P: It is true.
Gr: Thank you very much indeed.
Grabiner (Gr): I want to call on Dr Pang. [mumbles]
Usher: Good morning, Dr Pang.
Pang (P): I can hear you clearly.
[Usher leads Pang through the oath as Pang holds up The Jerusalem Bible]
Mellor: Thank you, do sit down.
Gr: Good morning. I'm instructed on behalf of Wright. You have a screen in front of you. I'll ask for your witness statement to be shown on it. Can you confirm it's your witness statement?
P: It is.
Gr: Is that your signature?
P: Yes.
Gr: Is the content true?
P: It is true.
Gr: Thank you very much indeed.
C: [Hough introduces himself] Have you watched Wright's evidence in the last days? No criticism if you haven't.
P: No, I've watched reports on YouTube.
C: By Gavin Mehl and CoinGeek?
P: Yes, and on Forbes etc.
C: You are currently a researcher in bioinformatics?
P: I am.
C: Developing software tools for understanding biological data?
P: Yes.
C: Based on your LinkedIn profile, you completed university in 2005.
P: Yes, and dissertation in 2006.
C: You were hired by BDO, working on data analytics.
P: [confirms]
C: You worked there 2007-2009?
P: Yes. I had a period writing my thesis.
C: You were at Deloitte until 2012?
P: Yes.
C: You were at University of New South Wales until 2020?
P: Yes, and I was promoted.
P: No, I've watched reports on YouTube.
C: By Gavin Mehl and CoinGeek?
P: Yes, and on Forbes etc.
C: You are currently a researcher in bioinformatics?
P: I am.
C: Developing software tools for understanding biological data?
P: Yes.
C: Based on your LinkedIn profile, you completed university in 2005.
P: Yes, and dissertation in 2006.
C: You were hired by BDO, working on data analytics.
P: [confirms]
C: You worked there 2007-2009?
P: Yes. I had a period writing my thesis.
C: You were at Deloitte until 2012?
P: Yes.
C: You were at University of New South Wales until 2020?
P: Yes, and I was promoted.
C: After Wright left BDO in 2008, you worked further with him?
P: Yes, writing possible cases of conference proceedings of network analysis. And Hotwire.
C: You say you did casual work for Hotwire PE, Wright's company, 2012-2015.
P: Period in between [explains]
C: When you were working there, were you an employee or a contractor?
P: Definitely employee.
C: You don't describe working for his other companies. Only Hotwire?
P: Yes.
C: You had a couple of stints with Hotwire, and no other work for Wright's other companies.
P: To the best of my knowledge, yes.
C: Did you author guide to [something] for InfoDefense in 2009?
P: I can confirm, authored at BDO who did not use it. Wright asked for permission to use it for InfoDefense. I didn't know what he would use it for [etc]. That was an omission on my part.
P: Yes, writing possible cases of conference proceedings of network analysis. And Hotwire.
C: You say you did casual work for Hotwire PE, Wright's company, 2012-2015.
P: Period in between [explains]
C: When you were working there, were you an employee or a contractor?
P: Definitely employee.
C: You don't describe working for his other companies. Only Hotwire?
P: Yes.
C: You had a couple of stints with Hotwire, and no other work for Wright's other companies.
P: To the best of my knowledge, yes.
C: Did you author guide to [something] for InfoDefense in 2009?
P: I can confirm, authored at BDO who did not use it. Wright asked for permission to use it for InfoDefense. I didn't know what he would use it for [etc]. That was an omission on my part.
C: Was that a document you were the sole writer of?
P: I wrote it solely, I think Wright would have reviewed it but I don't remember him making a lot of changes to it.
C: [shows the doc] Is this it?
P: I remember clearly this is InfoDefense [logo?]
C: See co-authors, Pang and Wright.
P: Yes.
C: But he wasn't actually a co-author?
P: He was my boss at BDO, it was his idea, not mine.
C: Did you receive payment from InfoDefense?
P: Not that I know of, but BDO paid me.
C: This is Wright's CV, one of them as he told us. Here's a summary of his work at BDO. Can you read it?
P: [reads to himself] There are some acronyms I don't understand.
C: I think it's an IT security standard. Does it summarize the sort of work Wright did?
P: [unclear, smiles] Sorry. It is an overview of his responsibilities, of which there are many. Lots are not captured. Very complicated, only a few people can do. USB drive, entropy, yeah.
P: I wrote it solely, I think Wright would have reviewed it but I don't remember him making a lot of changes to it.
C: [shows the doc] Is this it?
P: I remember clearly this is InfoDefense [logo?]
C: See co-authors, Pang and Wright.
P: Yes.
C: But he wasn't actually a co-author?
P: He was my boss at BDO, it was his idea, not mine.
C: Did you receive payment from InfoDefense?
P: Not that I know of, but BDO paid me.
C: This is Wright's CV, one of them as he told us. Here's a summary of his work at BDO. Can you read it?
P: [reads to himself] There are some acronyms I don't understand.
C: I think it's an IT security standard. Does it summarize the sort of work Wright did?
P: [unclear, smiles] Sorry. It is an overview of his responsibilities, of which there are many. Lots are not captured. Very complicated, only a few people can do. USB drive, entropy, yeah.
C: Based on your knowledge, would you accept Wright's work was based on IT security, digital forensics?
P: Only part of it, he also did data analytics.
C: Moving on to a project you did with him. Investigating predatory or grooming behavior on social networks.
P: I worked on the project, but I have limited knowledge of investigators working for the defendants.
C: Was it going to be used in relation to a court case?
P: Not this court case, but it was used in that court case at the time. I don't know the name. I saw Craig's folder with the name.
P: Only part of it, he also did data analytics.
C: Moving on to a project you did with him. Investigating predatory or grooming behavior on social networks.
P: I worked on the project, but I have limited knowledge of investigators working for the defendants.
C: Was it going to be used in relation to a court case?
P: Not this court case, but it was used in that court case at the time. I don't know the name. I saw Craig's folder with the name.
C: [shows doc] Is this a presentation you did with Wright?
P: To the best of my knowledge it is.
C: It modeled the social networks of two individuals based on their chats?
P: Yes, there are other people involved. My goal is to mine the interesting [parts of?] that.
C: There were two individuals who could choose names, and use multiple names?
P: Correct.
C: The perpetrator used names similar to "Homie", and the victim used names like "Aussiegirl".
P: It's a word-matching exercise, regular expression matching. We tried to find them.
C: You used [something] software.
P: Yes, I've used this software that I do not own, invented by someone else.
C: That is an analytical tool for visualizing networks.
P: Any type of network.
P: To the best of my knowledge it is.
C: It modeled the social networks of two individuals based on their chats?
P: Yes, there are other people involved. My goal is to mine the interesting [parts of?] that.
C: There were two individuals who could choose names, and use multiple names?
P: Correct.
C: The perpetrator used names similar to "Homie", and the victim used names like "Aussiegirl".
P: It's a word-matching exercise, regular expression matching. We tried to find them.
C: You used [something] software.
P: Yes, I've used this software that I do not own, invented by someone else.
C: That is an analytical tool for visualizing networks.
P: Any type of network.
C: You describe how her friends chat online. [shows graph]
P: OK, this is how the friends interact. All of the people paired with Aussiegirl, visually disturbing, hard to see. If we remove Aussiegirl from the network, we see how the friends interact.
C: Did you draw conclusions?
P: Not conclusions, merely interpretations. Opinion.
C: You identify possible aliases for Aussiegirl.
P: Yes, needs to be […] by that court to see if they accept it as reliable evidence.
C: You show how to zoom in?
P: Yes.
C: Similar exercise for "Homie".
P: Yes.
C: You start to express opinions about statistics of Homie's network.
P: Yes, they are opinions of mine.
C: You conclude Aussiegirl is not is in the core of Homie's network.
P: You summarize your conclusions, Homie is chatting to more friends than Aussiegirl.
C: This can not be my conclusion, just what I observed. Wright told me we cannot trust [missed] Most likely we were given partial information.
P: OK, this is how the friends interact. All of the people paired with Aussiegirl, visually disturbing, hard to see. If we remove Aussiegirl from the network, we see how the friends interact.
C: Did you draw conclusions?
P: Not conclusions, merely interpretations. Opinion.
C: You identify possible aliases for Aussiegirl.
P: Yes, needs to be […] by that court to see if they accept it as reliable evidence.
C: You show how to zoom in?
P: Yes.
C: Similar exercise for "Homie".
P: Yes.
C: You start to express opinions about statistics of Homie's network.
P: Yes, they are opinions of mine.
C: You conclude Aussiegirl is not is in the core of Homie's network.
P: You summarize your conclusions, Homie is chatting to more friends than Aussiegirl.
C: This can not be my conclusion, just what I observed. Wright told me we cannot trust [missed] Most likely we were given partial information.
C: You express an opinion that Homie's graph is highly connected and Aussiegirl is [missed]
P: Yes.
C: This was a summary of the work you did with Wright?
P: It's [not?] a summary that is useful to the court case. When I analyzed, I was asked not to read the messages between Homie and Aussiegirl, they are unsettling.
C: In your witness statement, you say you discussed three concepts, do you recall?
P: I recall there were three concepts. [lists]
C: To understand each, I'll ask of each. Guilt by association, [reads]
P: If the data is reliable. Otherwise we can't conclude that. [explains]
C: The second concept concerns proteins within densely connected networks. They are often parts of cores and bind together?
P: Yes, critical understanding for network analysis.
C: The third concept is the role gene duplication plays in creating new protein complexes.
P: Yes. I can't replicate the same analysis because [missed] This is [evolution] new and exciting.
P: Yes.
C: This was a summary of the work you did with Wright?
P: It's [not?] a summary that is useful to the court case. When I analyzed, I was asked not to read the messages between Homie and Aussiegirl, they are unsettling.
C: In your witness statement, you say you discussed three concepts, do you recall?
P: I recall there were three concepts. [lists]
C: To understand each, I'll ask of each. Guilt by association, [reads]
P: If the data is reliable. Otherwise we can't conclude that. [explains]
C: The second concept concerns proteins within densely connected networks. They are often parts of cores and bind together?
P: Yes, critical understanding for network analysis.
C: The third concept is the role gene duplication plays in creating new protein complexes.
P: Yes. I can't replicate the same analysis because [missed] This is [evolution] new and exciting.
C: You discussed with Wright about Aussiegirl and Homie using duplicated identities [etc]
P: Yes [protein explanation]
C: That was an analogy?
P: Entirely an analogy. [smiles]
C: This was part of forensics work at BDO?
P: Yes, also my first real data analytics job outside of academia.
C: Our understanding is that you were supporting the defense of somebody charged with grooming or predatory behavior.
P: Yes.
C: You said Wright told you "thank you for the explanation" to Wright, implying he understood everything.
P: [missed]
P: Yes [protein explanation]
C: That was an analogy?
P: Entirely an analogy. [smiles]
C: This was part of forensics work at BDO?
P: Yes, also my first real data analytics job outside of academia.
C: Our understanding is that you were supporting the defense of somebody charged with grooming or predatory behavior.
P: Yes.
C: You said Wright told you "thank you for the explanation" to Wright, implying he understood everything.
P: [missed]
C: [shows doc] Discussion with Wright about a Lego set. You made this statement in relation to this part of the statement?
P: Yes.
C: Because this part was particularly informed by the conversation with [the lawyers?]
P: Yes, [recall his interaction]
C: You're recounting a conversation more than 15 years ago. You don't say you put that conversation in writing.
P: I have not, but the word "blockchain" is strange, it seems like two words not used together often. Why would he not use "a chain of blocks" etc.
C: You first brought the conversation to mind when discussing with Wright and his lawyers?
P: Yes, with Ontier.
C: The Lego set was Batman?
P: Yes.
C: A model of Batman hitting an ice-cream truck used by The Joker.
P: Yes.
C: It was graded age 7-12.
P: Yes.
P: Yes.
C: Because this part was particularly informed by the conversation with [the lawyers?]
P: Yes, [recall his interaction]
C: You're recounting a conversation more than 15 years ago. You don't say you put that conversation in writing.
P: I have not, but the word "blockchain" is strange, it seems like two words not used together often. Why would he not use "a chain of blocks" etc.
C: You first brought the conversation to mind when discussing with Wright and his lawyers?
P: Yes, with Ontier.
C: The Lego set was Batman?
P: Yes.
C: A model of Batman hitting an ice-cream truck used by The Joker.
P: Yes.
C: It was graded age 7-12.
P: Yes.
C: You say you showed Wright the Lego set and suggest it would be worth a lot of money.
P: I wished it was at the time.
C: He said you should build a Lego blockchain.
P: Yes, that was very strange. [gesticulates] A tower of chain?
C: He said you couldn't use Technic bricks. They can make more complicated formation.
P: Yes, [confirms]
C: You said you were reminded of Technic bricks as I wrote this witness statement. Was that a memory that just popped into your mind?
P: It just popped into my mind. There has been a change of lawyer, so that information may not have been [passed properly] It came back to me when I was talking to the second lawer, Travor Smith or something. I remembered it especially when I wrote the document, then the lawyer asked why, they wanted me to trace and mention that.
C: You say you asked him how to build a Lego blockchain. He said it was like a recursive Chinese chain puzzle.
P: Yes, and he straight walked out of the room. Boom, out of the room.
P: I wished it was at the time.
C: He said you should build a Lego blockchain.
P: Yes, that was very strange. [gesticulates] A tower of chain?
C: He said you couldn't use Technic bricks. They can make more complicated formation.
P: Yes, [confirms]
C: You said you were reminded of Technic bricks as I wrote this witness statement. Was that a memory that just popped into your mind?
P: It just popped into my mind. There has been a change of lawyer, so that information may not have been [passed properly] It came back to me when I was talking to the second lawer, Travor Smith or something. I remembered it especially when I wrote the document, then the lawyer asked why, they wanted me to trace and mention that.
C: You say you asked him how to build a Lego blockchain. He said it was like a recursive Chinese chain puzzle.
P: Yes, and he straight walked out of the room. Boom, out of the room.
C: [shows puzzle]
P: [missed]
C: The conversation ended when Wright left the room. Trying to build this puzzle out of Lego would be hopeless?
P: Very difficult with basic Lego bricks. That image was clearly in my mind.
C: Trying to make that out of Lego, even specialized bricks, would be hopeless.
P: Maybe not hopeless, but might be very large, very hard. Lego always test their products, even in the oven.
C: So to summarize, you showed your senior colleague a Lego set, and he told you to do something you don't understand. He clarifies that he suggests the puzzle. I suggest it's a hopeless task.
P: At the time yes.
C: If it went as you suggest, it would not make sense.
P: It made no sense at all. [he would say?] nonsensical things.
C: I'm aware of the movie. Did you think he was being incoherent, or making fun of you?
P: He was making fun of me, as people do in offices to establish intelligence and higher ranking.
C: It's a very odd sort of joke.
P: Yes.
C: It makes no sense.
P: I can say a lot of things retrospectively, it's my opinion.
C: I'm suggesting your hazy recollection is not reliable.
P: It's not [reliable?] but he said blockchain, that's 100% clear to me.
C: I suggest picking out one word is not reliable.
P: It's completely reliable.
P: [missed]
C: The conversation ended when Wright left the room. Trying to build this puzzle out of Lego would be hopeless?
P: Very difficult with basic Lego bricks. That image was clearly in my mind.
C: Trying to make that out of Lego, even specialized bricks, would be hopeless.
P: Maybe not hopeless, but might be very large, very hard. Lego always test their products, even in the oven.
C: So to summarize, you showed your senior colleague a Lego set, and he told you to do something you don't understand. He clarifies that he suggests the puzzle. I suggest it's a hopeless task.
P: At the time yes.
C: If it went as you suggest, it would not make sense.
P: It made no sense at all. [he would say?] nonsensical things.
C: I'm aware of the movie. Did you think he was being incoherent, or making fun of you?
P: He was making fun of me, as people do in offices to establish intelligence and higher ranking.
C: It's a very odd sort of joke.
P: Yes.
C: It makes no sense.
P: I can say a lot of things retrospectively, it's my opinion.
C: I'm suggesting your hazy recollection is not reliable.
P: It's not [reliable?] but he said blockchain, that's 100% clear to me.
C: I suggest picking out one word is not reliable.
P: It's completely reliable.
C: You don't say any connection was drawn to Bitcoin or similar?
P: [missed]
C: Another conversation. He mentioned [someone's] name. You have this in writing?
P: No.
C: It took place after you returned to the office after sick leave. You contracted [cough] 2008. The conversation happened some time after that. So not before November-December 2008.
P: It would be right after October, before November. Early November, maybe.
C: You say Wright asked several people in the BDO lunch room if they knew someone that sounded Japanese.
P: It sounded like Satoshi Nakamoto.
C: You tell a story of writing the name in a notebook. You don't have it anymore?
P: I lost it, I remember how. [explains]
C: Then you googled the name and saw a reference to Bitcoin.
P: [confirms]
C: You don't remember any interaction about this with anyone else?
P: Discussed it briefly with Craig.
C: You didn't talk to anyone as a result of your googling?
P: No.
C: You said you told [someone] it could be an alias. If a person had an alias used for privacy, it would be strange to talk about it in an office canteen?
P: It would be quite strange. If Superman goes around asking […]
P: [missed]
C: Another conversation. He mentioned [someone's] name. You have this in writing?
P: No.
C: It took place after you returned to the office after sick leave. You contracted [cough] 2008. The conversation happened some time after that. So not before November-December 2008.
P: It would be right after October, before November. Early November, maybe.
C: You say Wright asked several people in the BDO lunch room if they knew someone that sounded Japanese.
P: It sounded like Satoshi Nakamoto.
C: You tell a story of writing the name in a notebook. You don't have it anymore?
P: I lost it, I remember how. [explains]
C: Then you googled the name and saw a reference to Bitcoin.
P: [confirms]
C: You don't remember any interaction about this with anyone else?
P: Discussed it briefly with Craig.
C: You didn't talk to anyone as a result of your googling?
P: No.
C: You said you told [someone] it could be an alias. If a person had an alias used for privacy, it would be strange to talk about it in an office canteen?
P: It would be quite strange. If Superman goes around asking […]
C: This is another hazy recollection.
P: It's very hazy, but I try to recollect it as well as I could, and I'm being truthful.
C: You were involved in Wright's tax claims. You were not registered as a tax [something]. Co1n limited made a tax offset claim for work done by you as a contractor.
P: I don't recollect that I was a contractor [laughs] I knew ATO was investigating, I was asked to be there to support Craig. [missed a bit]
C: [shows "Reasons for decision" ATO doc] Have you seen it before?
P: No, not at all.
C: [quotes] Co1n advised it incurred expenditure, referred to Pang as contractor, licenses in exchange for shares etc.
P: I don't know what those licenses are.
C: That was going to be my question, whether you received [shares?]
P: I had taken money for employment, don't know about those licenses.
P: It's very hazy, but I try to recollect it as well as I could, and I'm being truthful.
C: You were involved in Wright's tax claims. You were not registered as a tax [something]. Co1n limited made a tax offset claim for work done by you as a contractor.
P: I don't recollect that I was a contractor [laughs] I knew ATO was investigating, I was asked to be there to support Craig. [missed a bit]
C: [shows "Reasons for decision" ATO doc] Have you seen it before?
P: No, not at all.
C: [quotes] Co1n advised it incurred expenditure, referred to Pang as contractor, licenses in exchange for shares etc.
P: I don't know what those licenses are.
C: That was going to be my question, whether you received [shares?]
P: I had taken money for employment, don't know about those licenses.
C: ATO reported Co1n had provided an invoice by Wright to Co1n, transfer of licenses, assignment of hardware. SPSS license.
P: I don't even know how to use SPSS.
C: You don't think you received SPSS licenses?
P: I could have, but I chose not to use them. Have not ever used SPSS.
C: So you don't think you got licenses.
P: I have not used SPSS.
C: [quotes] no formal services, Wright invoiced Co1n as agent for you. Did you have an arrangement with Co1n where you provided services without formal contract?
P: Not able to tell you, had the impression I worked for Hotwire. I did what Craig asked me to do. Data analysis etc.
C: Did you sign agreement so Wright should be your agent?
P: [thinks] Can you repeat that, please, My Lord?
C: Please don't call me "My Lord".
Mellor [I think]: At least not at this time.
C: [repeats question]
P: Hard to remember. Don't want to put myself in jail for that.
C: That's not going to happen.
P: I don't even know how to use SPSS.
C: You don't think you received SPSS licenses?
P: I could have, but I chose not to use them. Have not ever used SPSS.
C: So you don't think you got licenses.
P: I have not used SPSS.
C: [quotes] no formal services, Wright invoiced Co1n as agent for you. Did you have an arrangement with Co1n where you provided services without formal contract?
P: Not able to tell you, had the impression I worked for Hotwire. I did what Craig asked me to do. Data analysis etc.
C: Did you sign agreement so Wright should be your agent?
P: [thinks] Can you repeat that, please, My Lord?
C: Please don't call me "My Lord".
Mellor [I think]: At least not at this time.
C: [repeats question]
P: Hard to remember. Don't want to put myself in jail for that.
C: That's not going to happen.
C: Did you provide emails saying [these things]
P: [confirms]
C: Were you approached out of the blue by the ATO?
P: Someone from Craig's side. The printer and laptop might have cost that much.
C: Co1n had provided you with […] and Hotwire with […], but not on employment status?
P: I believe it was on employment system. I received a printer, don't remember software at all.
C: ATO found a discrepancy in relation to your work. Were you aware?
P: Not aware what they are, if any.
C: [shows doc] a whole section in relation to you. Co1n provided contradictory accounts about your employment status. You say you were an employee?
P: Correct.
P: [confirms]
C: Were you approached out of the blue by the ATO?
P: Someone from Craig's side. The printer and laptop might have cost that much.
C: Co1n had provided you with […] and Hotwire with […], but not on employment status?
P: I believe it was on employment system. I received a printer, don't remember software at all.
C: ATO found a discrepancy in relation to your work. Were you aware?
P: Not aware what they are, if any.
C: [shows doc] a whole section in relation to you. Co1n provided contradictory accounts about your employment status. You say you were an employee?
P: Correct.
C: Those were all my questions, thank you very much.
P: Thank you.
Gr: [thanks Pang]
Mellor: You are now released from your oath.
We're taking ten minutes.
P: Thank you.
Gr: [thanks Pang]
Mellor: You are now released from your oath.
We're taking ten minutes.
Wright has a contempt hearing in Florida in the Kleiman case today. I wonder if that's why he's not here.
Back. Robert James Jenkins is the next witness. Usher goes through the oath with him. Grabiner confirms the witness statement with him.
Other COPA lawyer questions him, I don't know his name. I'll still call him "C".
C: Have you watched Wright's evidence in this trial?
J: No. Some commentary.
C: Where?
J: The web browser. Just some headlines.
Other COPA lawyer questions him, I don't know his name. I'll still call him "C".
C: Have you watched Wright's evidence in this trial?
J: No. Some commentary.
C: Where?
J: The web browser. Just some headlines.
C: You hired DeMorgan to implement firewall. [shows BDO CV] He lists career highlights, such as AEX security, Lasseter etc. No Vodafone. Accept that he didn't regard Vodafone work worth mentioning here?
J: It's tailored to opportunities.
C: [quotes Craig founding DeMorgan, IT security services] DeMorgan was doing standard IT security work for Vodafone.
J: Depends what you mean, revolving area in the 90s. I wouldn't call it standard.
C: It was carried out by DeMorgan, not Wright personally.
J: Correct.
J: It's tailored to opportunities.
C: [quotes Craig founding DeMorgan, IT security services] DeMorgan was doing standard IT security work for Vodafone.
J: Depends what you mean, revolving area in the 90s. I wouldn't call it standard.
C: It was carried out by DeMorgan, not Wright personally.
J: Correct.
C: You mention log file. Are you referring to a specific log file of who logged onto the PC?
J: No, Lord, it's a combination […] related to the firewall.
C: You say Wright created system with entries having serial numbers. It wasn't just Wright, it was DeMorgan with other employees.
J: Correct.
C: You used the phrase "genesis log entry", but there are no documents recording that term.
J: Correct.
C: You mentioned "genesis" because Bitcoin begins with a genesis block?
J: My recollection is from that time, rabbit hole about how a log file could be protected from tampering. The description Wright gave me was about hashing the […], how do you differentiate the log file etc. When Craig described it, he made reference to genesis.
C: You don't mention hashing in that paragraph.
J: No.
J: No, Lord, it's a combination […] related to the firewall.
C: You say Wright created system with entries having serial numbers. It wasn't just Wright, it was DeMorgan with other employees.
J: Correct.
C: You used the phrase "genesis log entry", but there are no documents recording that term.
J: Correct.
C: You mentioned "genesis" because Bitcoin begins with a genesis block?
J: My recollection is from that time, rabbit hole about how a log file could be protected from tampering. The description Wright gave me was about hashing the […], how do you differentiate the log file etc. When Craig described it, he made reference to genesis.
C: You don't mention hashing in that paragraph.
J: No.
C: You gave evidence in Oslo. Wright has discussed being Satoshi with you?
J: Not on an ongoing basis, it was a culmination, point in time rather than over a long period of time.
C: Since that point, when you heard the news, have you discussed him being Satoshi with him?
J: Yes, in Norway. We went into different aspects of Craig, including that he is Satoshi.
C: You have been associated with his story since at least 2016, you're mentioned in O'Hagan. Do you remember speaking with O'Hagan?
J: Yes, in Sydney.
C: Did Wright contacted you and put you in touch?
J: Yes. He said somebody wanted to write a story about him, about early years of his work.
C: When you spoke with O'Hagan, in 2016, you were aware of his claim to be Satoshi?
J: Yes.
C: You went in primed with that information.
J: That information was available to me, yes.
J: Not on an ongoing basis, it was a culmination, point in time rather than over a long period of time.
C: Since that point, when you heard the news, have you discussed him being Satoshi with him?
J: Yes, in Norway. We went into different aspects of Craig, including that he is Satoshi.
C: You have been associated with his story since at least 2016, you're mentioned in O'Hagan. Do you remember speaking with O'Hagan?
J: Yes, in Sydney.
C: Did Wright contacted you and put you in touch?
J: Yes. He said somebody wanted to write a story about him, about early years of his work.
C: When you spoke with O'Hagan, in 2016, you were aware of his claim to be Satoshi?
J: Yes.
C: You went in primed with that information.
J: That information was available to me, yes.
C: You say each log line had a serial number.
J: Yes, a time[stamp?] and [missed]
C: In June 2000 you left Vodafone. So your memory is now nearly 20 years old. You say entries have their own ID. The first entry was 1, second 2 etc. It was a sequential database.
J: Not really. A text file rather than a database.
C: A sequential list.
J: Correct.
J: Yes, a time[stamp?] and [missed]
C: In June 2000 you left Vodafone. So your memory is now nearly 20 years old. You say entries have their own ID. The first entry was 1, second 2 etc. It was a sequential database.
J: Not really. A text file rather than a database.
C: A sequential list.
J: Correct.
C: You discuss e-gold. You went from Vodafone to [company name]. A period 2000-2002. You say it was before eBay and PayPal and you discussed e-gold with Wright.
J: Before eBay and PayPal was available in Australia.
C: It launched in [year]
J: Not available in Australia.
C: [years and history] That can't be correct. What are you actually saying?
J: There wasn't an easy way to pay for things.
J: Before eBay and PayPal was available in Australia.
C: It launched in [year]
J: Not available in Australia.
C: [years and history] That can't be correct. What are you actually saying?
J: There wasn't an easy way to pay for things.
C: Your testimony in Hodlonaut: The judge asked you to tell the truth [affirmation] It's a punishable offense to lie to the court. Do you recall that?
J: Yes.
C: I assume you abided by that.
J: To the best of my ability.
C: You were asked about e-gold. [quotes] 2001. You mentioned here you were interested in e-gold in 2001. Your evidence in these proceedings you say 2000-2002. Which is accurate?
J: In Norway I went through emails, I'm a hoarder of emails. I knew at that stage it was 2001. [missed]
C: And you didn't take that exercise for these proceedings?
J: Yes, I was told not to make reference to [missed]
J: Yes.
C: I assume you abided by that.
J: To the best of my ability.
C: You were asked about e-gold. [quotes] 2001. You mentioned here you were interested in e-gold in 2001. Your evidence in these proceedings you say 2000-2002. Which is accurate?
J: In Norway I went through emails, I'm a hoarder of emails. I knew at that stage it was 2001. [missed]
C: And you didn't take that exercise for these proceedings?
J: Yes, I was told not to make reference to [missed]
C: The first of these documents is a transcript. Did you read it before you wrote this witness statement?
J: The one you showed me, it's the first time I've seen it.
C: Were you shown any version of the transcript?
J: No.
J: The one you showed me, it's the first time I've seen it.
C: Were you shown any version of the transcript?
J: No.
C: You say to buy things on eBay, no easy way to pay, needed escrow. You said this was more a passing note [of/from Wright] Your evidence in Hodlonaut was that Wright's interest in e-gold was "more of a passing note".
J: Interpreting the paragraph, it would seem … one of many things we talked about at the time.
C: Asked how much contact you had with Wright in the period 2002-2008, "we would catch up", 12-18 months would pass. You say you didn't have ongoing discussions of digital currencies, but the concept of trust. It was one of many topics you talked about?
J: We were talking more about the trust side of things rather than digital currencies per se. The trust placed in a piece of paper, a cash note, why trust it.
C: [quotes about Wright, escrow] You're not suggesting these are his actual words?
J: We were talking about escrow and e-gold, trust in promissory note etc. You continued to trust in someone.
C: And you were interested in e-gold, not Wright? You were invested?
J: I initially used it for purchase, I wasn't invested. It was a mechanism available in Australia.
C: Was Wright using e-gold?
J: I know he knew about it and those escrow services, and competitors?
C: Do you remember names of those competitors?
J: Most of them had "gold" in their names.
C: Can you remember details?
J: No.
J: Interpreting the paragraph, it would seem … one of many things we talked about at the time.
C: Asked how much contact you had with Wright in the period 2002-2008, "we would catch up", 12-18 months would pass. You say you didn't have ongoing discussions of digital currencies, but the concept of trust. It was one of many topics you talked about?
J: We were talking more about the trust side of things rather than digital currencies per se. The trust placed in a piece of paper, a cash note, why trust it.
C: [quotes about Wright, escrow] You're not suggesting these are his actual words?
J: We were talking about escrow and e-gold, trust in promissory note etc. You continued to trust in someone.
C: And you were interested in e-gold, not Wright? You were invested?
J: I initially used it for purchase, I wasn't invested. It was a mechanism available in Australia.
C: Was Wright using e-gold?
J: I know he knew about it and those escrow services, and competitors?
C: Do you remember names of those competitors?
J: Most of them had "gold" in their names.
C: Can you remember details?
J: No.
J: I probably have that information, can't remember, long time ago. In Norway I was given permission to look for information in my emails and SMS. So 18 months ago I was searching, it's not as fresh in my memory.
C: Would you be more accurate if you had undertaken such searches?
J: Absolutely, it would be accurate.
C: Backed up by documents?
J: Absolutely.
C: Would you be more accurate if you had undertaken such searches?
J: Absolutely, it would be accurate.
C: Backed up by documents?
J: Absolutely.
C: You moved to Australia after dotcom. You and Wright talked about a range of things. You mention topics you discussed that could relate to broad concepts relating to Bitcoin. Also other topics. What non-financial topics?
J: Firewall architecture for the bank, Craig was doing this work for other company, [hard to hear, speaks quickly]
C: In Hodlonaut you said you weren't just talking about techie stuff.
J: I was in the intersection of mobile and banking. We talked about effects of having a device you could use anywhere. Technical, not necessarily financial.
C: You don't talk about banking in your statement. You say you first recalled "blockchain" in 2008. Very precise year. Did Wright tell you this word?
J: To the best of my recollection that's correct.
C: You say you are looking back with hindsight. Not a single document mentions the word "blockchain" from this period.
J: [hesitates] No.
C: We only have your memory.
J: There may be emails I have, I was asked not to refer to them.
C: You think you may have 2008 emails with Wright that mentions blockchain.
J: Yes.
C: And you were told not to look for them.
J: Yes.
J: Firewall architecture for the bank, Craig was doing this work for other company, [hard to hear, speaks quickly]
C: In Hodlonaut you said you weren't just talking about techie stuff.
J: I was in the intersection of mobile and banking. We talked about effects of having a device you could use anywhere. Technical, not necessarily financial.
C: You don't talk about banking in your statement. You say you first recalled "blockchain" in 2008. Very precise year. Did Wright tell you this word?
J: To the best of my recollection that's correct.
C: You say you are looking back with hindsight. Not a single document mentions the word "blockchain" from this period.
J: [hesitates] No.
C: We only have your memory.
J: There may be emails I have, I was asked not to refer to them.
C: You think you may have 2008 emails with Wright that mentions blockchain.
J: Yes.
C: And you were told not to look for them.
J: Yes.
C: Are you familiar with Back's HashCash?
J: No.
C: It's from [year?] and mentions "block chain". [not sure I got that right] Could you have seen it?
J: [says he haven't seen it]
C: Could you have documents?
J: I may have, was asked not to refresh my memory.
C: Are you aware that "blockchain" doesn't appear in Bitcoin wp?
J: Yes.
C: You're not suggesting that just because Wright […] it would point to him being Satoshi?
J: No, [explains]
C: In mid-2005 you said you discussed currency with Wright because of a project you worked on. You raised it with Wriht?
J: We talked about it, around banking and trust. Those conversations were either started by Craig or myself. It was about why trust a piece of paper.
J: No.
C: It's from [year?] and mentions "block chain". [not sure I got that right] Could you have seen it?
J: [says he haven't seen it]
C: Could you have documents?
J: I may have, was asked not to refresh my memory.
C: Are you aware that "blockchain" doesn't appear in Bitcoin wp?
J: Yes.
C: You're not suggesting that just because Wright […] it would point to him being Satoshi?
J: No, [explains]
C: In mid-2005 you said you discussed currency with Wright because of a project you worked on. You raised it with Wriht?
J: We talked about it, around banking and trust. Those conversations were either started by Craig or myself. It was about why trust a piece of paper.
C: [quotes J] "one of *my* projects] It must have been you who raised that topic, Wright cannot have known about your project unless you told him.
J: Yes.
C: Name of project?
J: Can't remember.
C: Because of passing of time?
J: Either that, or I was asked not to research. It was a conversation spawned from [missed]
C: You described another project, mid-2007, a system called OPRA. Involved grid computing. It had been around for a while. You mention the SETI project, it was launched in the 90s. One of the most famous grid projects in the 90s. You say you and Wright talked about OPRA design. It arose from your work, not Wright.
J: Correct.
C: You go into breaking up computational tasks. You accept "node" is a basic compsci term. We don't have documents to back up this conversation, do we?
J: No disclosed documents.
C: You're looking back through the prism of hindsight.
J: OPRA was referred to in the previous court case, I think.
C: You say [breaking up computation tasks, recombining] That would have involved a potential discussion with Wright, you say. Potential.
J: Our conversations were ephemeral. Similar to BitTorrent, for example. It might be something Craig raised.
J: Yes.
C: Name of project?
J: Can't remember.
C: Because of passing of time?
J: Either that, or I was asked not to research. It was a conversation spawned from [missed]
C: You described another project, mid-2007, a system called OPRA. Involved grid computing. It had been around for a while. You mention the SETI project, it was launched in the 90s. One of the most famous grid projects in the 90s. You say you and Wright talked about OPRA design. It arose from your work, not Wright.
J: Correct.
C: You go into breaking up computational tasks. You accept "node" is a basic compsci term. We don't have documents to back up this conversation, do we?
J: No disclosed documents.
C: You're looking back through the prism of hindsight.
J: OPRA was referred to in the previous court case, I think.
C: You say [breaking up computation tasks, recombining] That would have involved a potential discussion with Wright, you say. Potential.
J: Our conversations were ephemeral. Similar to BitTorrent, for example. It might be something Craig raised.
C: Your time at BT. You and Wright were discussing banking or central bank while you worked at a bank.
J: BT was providing services. I left, but I only changed [missed]
C: You say you believed you discussed blockchain concepts in late 2008-9. Prism of hindsight, you've been told Wright is Satoshi.
J: In terms of him being Satoshi, I didn't realize it until much later.
C: You are looking back at events to try to see if things you discussed with him support him being Satoshi.
J: That wasn't the intent of looking back. [explains]
C: We have been deprived of the exercise of search in these proceedings.
J: Yes.
C: You don't have documents to back up this conversation.
J: I think there was an attachment to the witness statement, napkin drawing.
C: We don't have a napkin drawing, do we.
J: No, Craig [put it in his pocket?]
C: They don't mention any of these details, only that you were organizing the lunch.
J: Correct.
J: BT was providing services. I left, but I only changed [missed]
C: You say you believed you discussed blockchain concepts in late 2008-9. Prism of hindsight, you've been told Wright is Satoshi.
J: In terms of him being Satoshi, I didn't realize it until much later.
C: You are looking back at events to try to see if things you discussed with him support him being Satoshi.
J: That wasn't the intent of looking back. [explains]
C: We have been deprived of the exercise of search in these proceedings.
J: Yes.
C: You don't have documents to back up this conversation.
J: I think there was an attachment to the witness statement, napkin drawing.
C: We don't have a napkin drawing, do we.
J: No, Craig [put it in his pocket?]
C: They don't mention any of these details, only that you were organizing the lunch.
J: Correct.
C: Lunch in 2008. We dispute the conversations happened. It's very hard to remember details of a lunch 16 years ago.
J: Yes, but they were in short succession. GFC hit Australia, it was a moment in time we can look back at and think what we were doing at the time.
C: And this was right after Wright was made redundant at BDO.
J: That's right.
J: Yes, but they were in short succession. GFC hit Australia, it was a moment in time we can look back at and think what we were doing at the time.
C: And this was right after Wright was made redundant at BDO.
J: That's right.
C: You joined Westpac in 2010. Wright asked you to do some mining. You accept mining is a fairly standard comsci term.
J: Yes. Mining coin wasn't something I was familiar with the time, needed it clarified for me.
C: This reference to mining was Wright telling you to mine bitcoin?
J: It was to run some code, Bitcoin wasn't mentioned. It was to help secure the information distributed between nodes.
C: Details matter, Jenkins. You're talking about mining, 2009. Are you not saying Wright mentioned Bitcoin to you?
J: It wasn't mentioned at that time.
C: He just asked you to some mining?
J: He explained it was […] In terms of Bitcoin, it didn't factor into the conversation.
J: Yes. Mining coin wasn't something I was familiar with the time, needed it clarified for me.
C: This reference to mining was Wright telling you to mine bitcoin?
J: It was to run some code, Bitcoin wasn't mentioned. It was to help secure the information distributed between nodes.
C: Details matter, Jenkins. You're talking about mining, 2009. Are you not saying Wright mentioned Bitcoin to you?
J: It wasn't mentioned at that time.
C: He just asked you to some mining?
J: He explained it was […] In terms of Bitcoin, it didn't factor into the conversation.
C: [plays CoinGeek video from Hodlonaut trial, Jenkins speaks, says Craig mentioned "mine some bitcoin" in 2011] Your clear evidence in Hodlonaut, under oath, was that it was early 2011 you first heard about Bitcoin.
J: Yes.
C: You tie that memory to being at Westpac.
J: Yes.
C: Where you started in 2010.
J: Yes.
C: [quotes Jenkins saying Wright mentioned Bitcoin in 2009-2010] Not even an hour ago says you first heard the word Bitcoin in 2009-2010. That cannot be correct.
J: Could be correct in so far as [missed] For this court case I can't look up evidence. Does appear to be a discrepancy.
C: You were very clear in Hodlonaut that you tied it to Westpac. Could not have been before 2010. Absolutely not in 2009.
J: Correct. My statement says 2010.
C: But it can't have been 2009.
J: Yes.
C: Details matter. In [year] it was much more common than in 2009. Do you accept quite clear inconsistency between evidence in Hodlonaut and here?
J: This has been more reliant on long-term memory.
C: So Hodlonaut evidence must be better?
J: Yes.
C: You're looking back through the prism of hindsight now that you know Wright claims to be Satoshi. Accept?
J: No.
J: Yes.
C: You tie that memory to being at Westpac.
J: Yes.
C: Where you started in 2010.
J: Yes.
C: [quotes Jenkins saying Wright mentioned Bitcoin in 2009-2010] Not even an hour ago says you first heard the word Bitcoin in 2009-2010. That cannot be correct.
J: Could be correct in so far as [missed] For this court case I can't look up evidence. Does appear to be a discrepancy.
C: You were very clear in Hodlonaut that you tied it to Westpac. Could not have been before 2010. Absolutely not in 2009.
J: Correct. My statement says 2010.
C: But it can't have been 2009.
J: Yes.
C: Details matter. In [year] it was much more common than in 2009. Do you accept quite clear inconsistency between evidence in Hodlonaut and here?
J: This has been more reliant on long-term memory.
C: So Hodlonaut evidence must be better?
J: Yes.
C: You're looking back through the prism of hindsight now that you know Wright claims to be Satoshi. Accept?
J: No.
C: [quotes witness testimony] The topics of conversations with Wright were about what you were working on at the time?
J: Correct.
C: You were asked if Wright sent a white paper relating to digital currency, and you said no. You just accepted your Hodlonaut evidence is more reliable, and you said you never received a wp.
J: No, there are errors in the transcript. I said he didn't send me anything, not that he didn't show me anything. [asks to replay the video] This is the first time I see the transcript.
C: I want to clarify whether you accept that he didn't send you a wp.
J: Correct.
J: Correct.
C: You were asked if Wright sent a white paper relating to digital currency, and you said no. You just accepted your Hodlonaut evidence is more reliable, and you said you never received a wp.
J: No, there are errors in the transcript. I said he didn't send me anything, not that he didn't show me anything. [asks to replay the video] This is the first time I see the transcript.
C: I want to clarify whether you accept that he didn't send you a wp.
J: Correct.
C: You said you heard through the news that Wright claimed to be Satoshi. Asked what your reaction was, you thought Craig could be Satoshi based on your interactions. This is a frank admission of prism of hindsight. Are you aware that many others have been candidates for Satoshi? [lists names] You didn't research all of them?
J: No, just Craig. In terms of others, no interest. Just trying to recollect conversations with Craig.
C: You can only speculate because you have now been told he is and you're looking back.
J: That and other things. Getting to know Craig, I know him to be unique, shies away, I see the flip side of him, he's gregarious. Him being Satoshi doesn't surprise me.
C: But you don't actually know. You were not there when he wrote the whitepaper.
J: No, I wasn't.
J: No, just Craig. In terms of others, no interest. Just trying to recollect conversations with Craig.
C: You can only speculate because you have now been told he is and you're looking back.
J: That and other things. Getting to know Craig, I know him to be unique, shies away, I see the flip side of him, he's gregarious. Him being Satoshi doesn't surprise me.
C: But you don't actually know. You were not there when he wrote the whitepaper.
J: No, I wasn't.
C: We discussed network logs because Wright worked with Vodafone and you worked there, we discussed e-gold because you were [interested in it], etc. Grid computing because you worked [on it]. The common thread is that all these conversations arose because you raised them. Your career, not his. You're not Satoshi, are you, Mr Jenkins?
J: [pause] No, I'm not.
C: Quite a pause there.
J: [pause] No, I'm not.
C: Quite a pause there.
Gr: Your memory has been criticized. [shows witness statement] "we discussed in 2008-9 concepts relating to blockchain". The suggestion was that your memory was hopeless. What do you say to that?
J: My memory isn't better or worse than anyone else's. In Hodlonaut, I was asked to go through my emails etc, went through enormous amount of data, means my memory now goes back 18 months.
Gr: Here you were asked about Norwegian proceedings. [quotes] You said he didn't *send* you anything. Did he show you anything?
J: I do remember seeing a couple of things aside from the napkin. I was shown a paper, it didn't make mention of Bitcoin, but of TimeCoin.
Gr: When?
J: Before Westpac. 2009-10.
Gr: What was the context of the conversation?
J: It was in a café.
Gr: [shows TimeCoin, Wright's name on it] Do you recognize it?
J: It does look, certainly similar to the one I saw.
Gr: What do you recall from the conversation?
J: The firewall implementation, drawings on napkin. Serial increment of entries in log file. You saw a hashed version of it, encrypted. The timeserver in TimeCoin was discussed. Esoteric, but could relate to.
Gr: No further question.
C: [i would like to ask]
Gr: I object
Mellor: I'm going to allow it.
J: My memory isn't better or worse than anyone else's. In Hodlonaut, I was asked to go through my emails etc, went through enormous amount of data, means my memory now goes back 18 months.
Gr: Here you were asked about Norwegian proceedings. [quotes] You said he didn't *send* you anything. Did he show you anything?
J: I do remember seeing a couple of things aside from the napkin. I was shown a paper, it didn't make mention of Bitcoin, but of TimeCoin.
Gr: When?
J: Before Westpac. 2009-10.
Gr: What was the context of the conversation?
J: It was in a café.
Gr: [shows TimeCoin, Wright's name on it] Do you recognize it?
J: It does look, certainly similar to the one I saw.
Gr: What do you recall from the conversation?
J: The firewall implementation, drawings on napkin. Serial increment of entries in log file. You saw a hashed version of it, encrypted. The timeserver in TimeCoin was discussed. Esoteric, but could relate to.
Gr: No further question.
C: [i would like to ask]
Gr: I object
Mellor: I'm going to allow it.
C: how many times do your refer to TimeCoin [here and there]
J: None.
C: Why do you have the TimeCoin paper in front of you?
J: I need to [missed]
C: Who told you?
J: Myself.
C: Can you read your notes?
J: TimeCoin etc
C: You wrote TimeCoin down before evidence started
J: Yes.
C: Who told you to do that?
J: Myself.
C: You've never talked about it in Hodlonaut, here or before. Why did it come up?
J: It came up [missed] There's lots of reference to Bitcoin wp, I was never shown.
C: Was it from the covering of this case?
J: No.
C: Did Wright or his associates tell you to mention TimeCoin?
J: No.
C: You have been prepared for evidence, slipping it in. Do you accept?
J: No, I took these notes during the interactions.
C: That's not what you said, what is the truth?
J: I wrote "My Lord" because that's how I need to address. Relation to firewall [sorry this is messy]. I've never received Bitcoin wp. TimeCoin is a term of phrase I've recollected from conversations. I did see the wp, it was never sent. eBay had no PayPal capabilities, needed e-gold escrow. Notes from interactions.
C: You said you made the note before evidence started.
J: About "my lord", yes.
C: But TimeCoin? We didn't see you write anything. Did you write it after I started questioning you?
J: It was during the course of this interaction.
C: This is a lie. You wrote it before, somebody told you.
Gr: Let him answer.
J: Simply not correct. Only wrote "My Lord".
C: Did you first remember TimeCoin in the course of me questioning you?
J: Yes.
C: That's not the truth. No further question.
Mellor: Thank you, you are now released from your oath.
J: Thank you, My Lord.
J: None.
C: Why do you have the TimeCoin paper in front of you?
J: I need to [missed]
C: Who told you?
J: Myself.
C: Can you read your notes?
J: TimeCoin etc
C: You wrote TimeCoin down before evidence started
J: Yes.
C: Who told you to do that?
J: Myself.
C: You've never talked about it in Hodlonaut, here or before. Why did it come up?
J: It came up [missed] There's lots of reference to Bitcoin wp, I was never shown.
C: Was it from the covering of this case?
J: No.
C: Did Wright or his associates tell you to mention TimeCoin?
J: No.
C: You have been prepared for evidence, slipping it in. Do you accept?
J: No, I took these notes during the interactions.
C: That's not what you said, what is the truth?
J: I wrote "My Lord" because that's how I need to address. Relation to firewall [sorry this is messy]. I've never received Bitcoin wp. TimeCoin is a term of phrase I've recollected from conversations. I did see the wp, it was never sent. eBay had no PayPal capabilities, needed e-gold escrow. Notes from interactions.
C: You said you made the note before evidence started.
J: About "my lord", yes.
C: But TimeCoin? We didn't see you write anything. Did you write it after I started questioning you?
J: It was during the course of this interaction.
C: This is a lie. You wrote it before, somebody told you.
Gr: Let him answer.
J: Simply not correct. Only wrote "My Lord".
C: Did you first remember TimeCoin in the course of me questioning you?
J: Yes.
C: That's not the truth. No further question.
Mellor: Thank you, you are now released from your oath.
J: Thank you, My Lord.
Lunch break until 14:10.
Back.
Mellor: Document shown to Jenkins. It was first sent to Wright by his solicitors. It was added to BDO drive in 2023, but was encrypted. It was sent to Wright by Mayaka in September 2023. Has any experts been able to analyze that file?
[Counsels are discussing]
C: It might be in tomorrow's Madden report, not sure.
Gunning: it was also [missed]
Gr: I think there are a few in the bundle.
Gr: The next witness is Yousuf.
Mellor: Document shown to Jenkins. It was first sent to Wright by his solicitors. It was added to BDO drive in 2023, but was encrypted. It was sent to Wright by Mayaka in September 2023. Has any experts been able to analyze that file?
[Counsels are discussing]
C: It might be in tomorrow's Madden report, not sure.
Gunning: it was also [missed]
Gr: I think there are a few in the bundle.
Gr: The next witness is Yousuf.
Usher: Can you show His Lordship the Qoran?
He is lead through the oath.
Gr: You have a separate screen in front of you?
Yousuf (Y): No.
Gr: Do you see that?
Y: Yes.
[Confirms his witness statement]
He is lead through the oath.
Gr: You have a separate screen in front of you?
Yousuf (Y): No.
Gr: Do you see that?
Y: Yes.
[Confirms his witness statement]
C: Have you watched Wright's evidence [in this trial]?
Y: No, I have not, My Lord.
C: No need to call me Lord.
Mellor: He's giving his evidence to me [court laughs]
C: Have you followed social media etc?
Y: No.
C: You first met Wright at Charles Sturt in 2006?
Y: That is true, My Lord.
C: He was a […]?
Y: That's correct [always with My Lord]
C: Do you still consider him your mentor now?
Y: Yes.
Y: No, I have not, My Lord.
C: No need to call me Lord.
Mellor: He's giving his evidence to me [court laughs]
C: Have you followed social media etc?
Y: No.
C: You first met Wright at Charles Sturt in 2006?
Y: That is true, My Lord.
C: He was a […]?
Y: That's correct [always with My Lord]
C: Do you still consider him your mentor now?
Y: Yes.
C: You mention you discussed many topics, tech and non-tech.
Y: Yes.
C: You talk shop, but also politics and religion.
Y: Yes.
C: What were the political discussions in 2006-9?
Y: Don't remember exactly, it's been more than 15 years.
C: You had religious discussions. What were they?
Y: I am a practicing Muslim, and Wright has read the Quran and religious books, discussions were about religious aspects.
C: In 2006 you had what you call futuristic discussions, involving digital currencies. They have been around much longer.
Y: Yes, with a different definition.
C: Are you aware of Chaum etc?
Y: No.
C: You discussed Visa and Mastercard in 2006. They are still around today. Major players in the West. You say you discussed distributed networks, and you were both in cybersecurity. Distributed networks arises in cybersecurity, it's a common feature.
Y: Not very common at the time.
C: Discussions arose because you were both in cybersecurity.
Y: Yes, Wright is an expert.
Y: Yes.
C: You talk shop, but also politics and religion.
Y: Yes.
C: What were the political discussions in 2006-9?
Y: Don't remember exactly, it's been more than 15 years.
C: You had religious discussions. What were they?
Y: I am a practicing Muslim, and Wright has read the Quran and religious books, discussions were about religious aspects.
C: In 2006 you had what you call futuristic discussions, involving digital currencies. They have been around much longer.
Y: Yes, with a different definition.
C: Are you aware of Chaum etc?
Y: No.
C: You discussed Visa and Mastercard in 2006. They are still around today. Major players in the West. You say you discussed distributed networks, and you were both in cybersecurity. Distributed networks arises in cybersecurity, it's a common feature.
Y: Not very common at the time.
C: Discussions arose because you were both in cybersecurity.
Y: Yes, Wright is an expert.
C: You worked in business with Wright in 2011. It was called […] and changed name to Co1n. [it] was registered in July 2011. You've given evidence on behalf of Wright before. That was in Hodlonaut. You said there you were involved with Co1n for 10 months.
Y: We established it together, I ran it for 10 months. Craig continued, and renamed the company to Co1n.
C: [shows Hodlonaut transcript, refers to affirmation] You were telling the truth in those proceedings?
Y: Yes.
C: You were asked how long the corporation lasted, you said you parted ways within 10 months. Was it around or within?
Y: [don't remember?] Corporation is one thing, working together was a different thing. We worked with the idea, met several times etc.
C: Within ten months – is that from incorporation, or from when you started working on it?
Y: It was after setting up the company.
Y: We established it together, I ran it for 10 months. Craig continued, and renamed the company to Co1n.
C: [shows Hodlonaut transcript, refers to affirmation] You were telling the truth in those proceedings?
Y: Yes.
C: You were asked how long the corporation lasted, you said you parted ways within 10 months. Was it around or within?
Y: [don't remember?] Corporation is one thing, working together was a different thing. We worked with the idea, met several times etc.
C: Within ten months – is that from incorporation, or from when you started working on it?
Y: It was after setting up the company.
C: You said Co1n was running out of money. Craig contacted me etc. You said you don't recall the date. When did you take up your job in Malaysia?
Y: The company was still running, don't know the exact month. […] when Craig contacted me again.
C: When did you take the job in Malaysia?
Y: Don't remember, some time in 2013.
C: Hodlonaut evidence. [quotes, around 2011] You said around 2012 you came back to Sydney and visited Craig. Were you in Malaysia in 2012, or in Australia?
Y: I took a job in Queensland, and from there I went to Malaysia. In 2012 I went there to […] and also […] in 2013.
C: [quotes] Your evidence from Hodlonaut is that you left Malaysia in 2011. Inconsistent.
Y: I said I'm not sure. In 2011-12, I took up the job, I left the company but it was still running. I took a job in Queensland, and then Malaysia. It was around that period, 11-12, something like that.
C: In your evidence here and in Malaysia, you tie your recollection to where you were, that's why it's important. Is 2011 correct?
Y: I can't remember exactly, but what are you referring to, what are you trying to achieve, how is it relevant? I'm struggling to understand.
C: I'm not going to tell you where I'm going with my cross-examination. You said you left in 2011, and you said you don't recall. Agree it would be easy to check?
Y: I can go back and check. Today it was based on my collective knowledge.
Y: The company was still running, don't know the exact month. […] when Craig contacted me again.
C: When did you take the job in Malaysia?
Y: Don't remember, some time in 2013.
C: Hodlonaut evidence. [quotes, around 2011] You said around 2012 you came back to Sydney and visited Craig. Were you in Malaysia in 2012, or in Australia?
Y: I took a job in Queensland, and from there I went to Malaysia. In 2012 I went there to […] and also […] in 2013.
C: [quotes] Your evidence from Hodlonaut is that you left Malaysia in 2011. Inconsistent.
Y: I said I'm not sure. In 2011-12, I took up the job, I left the company but it was still running. I took a job in Queensland, and then Malaysia. It was around that period, 11-12, something like that.
C: In your evidence here and in Malaysia, you tie your recollection to where you were, that's why it's important. Is 2011 correct?
Y: I can't remember exactly, but what are you referring to, what are you trying to achieve, how is it relevant? I'm struggling to understand.
C: I'm not going to tell you where I'm going with my cross-examination. You said you left in 2011, and you said you don't recall. Agree it would be easy to check?
Y: I can go back and check. Today it was based on my collective knowledge.
C: Have you looked at your records?
Y: No.
C: You didn't think to look at documents backing up yor statements?
Y: [no]
C: With the docs, you would be able to check.
Y: I can go back and check my work contract.
C: Were you asked to?
Y: No.
C: Not a single document is appended to your statement.
Y: I don't think so, My Lord.
C: Therefore all we have is your recollection.
Y: That's correct, My Lord.
C: In Hodlonaut, you said you found out Wright claims to be Satoshi in 2015 through the news. Since then, have you discussed it with him?
Y: No.
C: Not at all?
Y: No.
C: You find out your mentor created Bitcoin, and your evidence is you never spoke to him about that?
Y: No. Craig is my friend, I love him. I have not shown an interest in knowing whether he is or is not Satoshi.
C: It's an incredible thing to say.
Y: Absolutely.
Y: No.
C: You didn't think to look at documents backing up yor statements?
Y: [no]
C: With the docs, you would be able to check.
Y: I can go back and check my work contract.
C: Were you asked to?
Y: No.
C: Not a single document is appended to your statement.
Y: I don't think so, My Lord.
C: Therefore all we have is your recollection.
Y: That's correct, My Lord.
C: In Hodlonaut, you said you found out Wright claims to be Satoshi in 2015 through the news. Since then, have you discussed it with him?
Y: No.
C: Not at all?
Y: No.
C: You find out your mentor created Bitcoin, and your evidence is you never spoke to him about that?
Y: No. Craig is my friend, I love him. I have not shown an interest in knowing whether he is or is not Satoshi.
C: It's an incredible thing to say.
Y: Absolutely.
C: When you went to Malaysia, were you involved with Co1n?
Y: Not directly.
C: What do you mean?
Y: I had the shares, I was one of the research […] for some time, was not involved in running it.
C: It only had two directors, you and Wright. After you went to Malaysia, you were still a director, but only Wright was running it?
Y: Correct.
Y: Not directly.
C: What do you mean?
Y: I had the shares, I was one of the research […] for some time, was not involved in running it.
C: It only had two directors, you and Wright. After you went to Malaysia, you were still a director, but only Wright was running it?
Y: Correct.
C: [shows Reasons for decision ATO doc] It says March 2016. Tax shortfall for 2014-15. See corporation date, 2000 shares issued of which you have 500. You were appointed director. One of two. It says you ceased to be a director in 2014. Here it says you're still a director. So which was it?
Y: When I took up that job in Malaysia, I was not involved in that company. Craig provided me with an update when I was in Sydney, I was very impressed. But I was working in Malaysia. Had no reason to come back to Sydney, and decided to resign.
C: Would that would have been in March 2014?
Y: Don't remember exact date.
Y: When I took up that job in Malaysia, I was not involved in that company. Craig provided me with an update when I was in Sydney, I was very impressed. But I was working in Malaysia. Had no reason to come back to Sydney, and decided to resign.
C: Would that would have been in March 2014?
Y: Don't remember exact date.
C: 2012-13 decision. You remained the director throughout this period?
Y: Yes.
C: Do you accept you were a registered director?
Y: Don't remember when I resigned. 2013 or 2014.
C: Well you are registered in this period.
C: [shows ATO doc] a number of Bitcoin addresses. It says an audit was undertaken, refundable tax offsets. While you were director of Co1n.
Y: [unclear]
C: You were registered.
Y: OK
C: Are you aware of the role of a director?
Y: Yes
C: And of the duties?
Y: Yes, and Craig was also a director.
Y: Yes.
C: Do you accept you were a registered director?
Y: Don't remember when I resigned. 2013 or 2014.
C: Well you are registered in this period.
C: [shows ATO doc] a number of Bitcoin addresses. It says an audit was undertaken, refundable tax offsets. While you were director of Co1n.
Y: [unclear]
C: You were registered.
Y: OK
C: Are you aware of the role of a director?
Y: Yes
C: And of the duties?
Y: Yes, and Craig was also a director.
C: Purported r&d activities. [quotes] This is a project while you were a director? And you knew about it? Not at all?
Y: I don't remember about this project.
C: It says about scriptable money, using Bitcoin, transaction signing etc. So you don't remember anything about this?
Y: No, I remember Craig gave me an update about the company, he mentioned Bitcoin, wallets etc. I was not aware of this project.
C: We see the ATO recording the filing was taken from internet sources without credit. Were you aware?
Y: No.
C: Who would have been responsible for filing this?
Y: Craig.
Y: I don't remember about this project.
C: It says about scriptable money, using Bitcoin, transaction signing etc. So you don't remember anything about this?
Y: No, I remember Craig gave me an update about the company, he mentioned Bitcoin, wallets etc. I was not aware of this project.
C: We see the ATO recording the filing was taken from internet sources without credit. Were you aware?
Y: No.
C: Who would have been responsible for filing this?
Y: Craig.
C: You don't have any recollection? Was that done by Wright?
Y: Don't remember.
C: In February 2016, AusIndustry found no activity met the requirements. Were you aware?
Y: No.
C: [quotes number, tax offsets] Do you see what was claimed there? Just under 5 million etc.
Y: I see that.
C: You were a director at this time. Were you aware of nearly 5 million of deductions?
Y: No, I was not aware.
C: And of refundable tax offsets of 2 million?
Y: No.
C: What were you doing for 10 months when you were involved?
Y: It was to leverage Wright's research, develop network operations center. We worked on setting up the business, cybersecurity training, monitoring, pentesting etc. We worked with Craig to develop a product to help enterprises monitor their network for threats. This is how I was involved, working with Craig.
Y: Don't remember.
C: In February 2016, AusIndustry found no activity met the requirements. Were you aware?
Y: No.
C: [quotes number, tax offsets] Do you see what was claimed there? Just under 5 million etc.
Y: I see that.
C: You were a director at this time. Were you aware of nearly 5 million of deductions?
Y: No, I was not aware.
C: And of refundable tax offsets of 2 million?
Y: No.
C: What were you doing for 10 months when you were involved?
Y: It was to leverage Wright's research, develop network operations center. We worked on setting up the business, cybersecurity training, monitoring, pentesting etc. We worked with Craig to develop a product to help enterprises monitor their network for threats. This is how I was involved, working with Craig.
C: So you were looking to launch a cybersecurity business?
Y: That was the plan.
C: Two deductions and offset, not the only deduction. One sought for over 2 million dollers for Professor Reece. Any knowledge?
Y: No.
C: Did you ever hear Reece mentioned?
Y: No, My Lord.
Y: That was the plan.
C: Two deductions and offset, not the only deduction. One sought for over 2 million dollers for Professor Reece. Any knowledge?
Y: No.
C: Did you ever hear Reece mentioned?
Y: No, My Lord.
C: [quotes statement of work, signed by Wright and Kleiman in 2012] This was carried out when you were one of only two directors.
Y: Seems like it.
C: Were you involved in that statement of work?
Y: No.
C: Knew anything about it?
Y: No.
C: It was taken off the internet. Do you know who did it?
Y: No.
C: It can't have been you. Could it been Wright?
Y: Perhaps Wright might have leveraged [some employees]
C: How many employees were there?
Y: Not many, but Wright has a few businesses. He was very busy on multiple topics, doing things with other companies. He said he was working on something and needed more time. It was me, Wright and some of our friends. In 2013-14, Craig invited me to his office, and I found quite many employees, 20-40 people.
Y: Seems like it.
C: Were you involved in that statement of work?
Y: No.
C: Knew anything about it?
Y: No.
C: It was taken off the internet. Do you know who did it?
Y: No.
C: It can't have been you. Could it been Wright?
Y: Perhaps Wright might have leveraged [some employees]
C: How many employees were there?
Y: Not many, but Wright has a few businesses. He was very busy on multiple topics, doing things with other companies. He said he was working on something and needed more time. It was me, Wright and some of our friends. In 2013-14, Craig invited me to his office, and I found quite many employees, 20-40 people.
C: [quotes] not same writing style etc as statement of work. You have no knowledge of it
Y: No.
C: [quotes ATO doc] Your name appears on meeting minutes. Do you recall?
Y: No.
C: No recollection of attending that board meeting? And none of the project whatsoever?
Y: No.
C: Do you think the board meeting notes were genuine?
Y: I don't remember.
Y: No.
C: [quotes ATO doc] Your name appears on meeting minutes. Do you recall?
Y: No.
C: No recollection of attending that board meeting? And none of the project whatsoever?
Y: No.
C: Do you think the board meeting notes were genuine?
Y: I don't remember.
C: Supercomputer in top500 list. Any knowledge of Co1n's supercomputer?
Y: I remember Wright sharing news about supercomputers, I don't remember [something]
C: You were a director of a company with a supercomputer. You don't remember?
Y: No.
C: Was the supercomputer simply a sham?
Y: Why would you say that?
C: You have no knowledge of it, but ATO records inconsistencies. Was there a supercomputer, or a sham?
Y: I have not seen it, but I can't say whether it's a sham.
Y: I remember Wright sharing news about supercomputers, I don't remember [something]
C: You were a director of a company with a supercomputer. You don't remember?
Y: No.
C: Was the supercomputer simply a sham?
Y: Why would you say that?
C: You have no knowledge of it, but ATO records inconsistencies. Was there a supercomputer, or a sham?
Y: I have not seen it, but I can't say whether it's a sham.
C: [quotes ATO doc] There are screenshots of alleged messages between Wright and Kleiman. Are you aware?
Y: No.
C: So everything that was done here was by Wright?
Y: That might be the case.
C: Are you aware of the Tulip Trust?
Y: I have heard about it?
C: What have you heard?
Y: When I visited Wright, he mentioned it.
C: ATO said two of the keys were created using software unavailable at the time. Are you aware?
Y: I'm not aware of that.
C: You weren't involved in any of this?
Y: No.
Y: No.
C: So everything that was done here was by Wright?
Y: That might be the case.
C: Are you aware of the Tulip Trust?
Y: I have heard about it?
C: What have you heard?
Y: When I visited Wright, he mentioned it.
C: ATO said two of the keys were created using software unavailable at the time. Are you aware?
Y: I'm not aware of that.
C: You weren't involved in any of this?
Y: No.
C: Wright showed ATO officers what was supposedly a supercomputer, they recorded video. There was a site visit. You know nothing about the existence of this supercomputer?
Y: That's correct. I was not aware, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.
C: Not a single document.
Y: I'm here, I can tell you of my knowledge.
C: ATO concluded there was no supercomputer. You were not aware of a supercomputer?
Y: That's correct.
Y: That's correct. I was not aware, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.
C: Not a single document.
Y: I'm here, I can tell you of my knowledge.
C: ATO concluded there was no supercomputer. You were not aware of a supercomputer?
Y: That's correct.
C: [quotes email between ATO and company directors] It may have been after you resigned, but you were in 2013. What do you know about that email?
Y: I'm not aware of it.
C: Were you receiving email as a director?
Y: [missed]
C: And you know nothing of this email?
Y: I've never gotten email from ATO.
C: You weren't involved at this time, but were you ever asked by Wright or others to check?
Y: Not of my knowledge. I don't remember […] ATO.
C: Do you know if this email is real? Were they sent?
Y: I'm not aware of the email.
Y: I'm not aware of it.
C: Were you receiving email as a director?
Y: [missed]
C: And you know nothing of this email?
Y: I've never gotten email from ATO.
C: You weren't involved at this time, but were you ever asked by Wright or others to check?
Y: Not of my knowledge. I don't remember […] ATO.
C: Do you know if this email is real? Were they sent?
Y: I'm not aware of the email.
C: Are you aware of anything going on in Co1n [at this time]?
Y: I was not involved [etc]
C: [quotes] A disguise for other transaction or no transactions at all, a sham. Were you aware?
Y: No.
C: ATO found fabrication. Who would have done it?
Y: I'm not aware of that.
C: So you don't know who did it.
Y: No.
C: Perhaps now is a good time for a break.
Mellor: We'll take five minutes.
Y: I was not involved [etc]
C: [quotes] A disguise for other transaction or no transactions at all, a sham. Were you aware?
Y: No.
C: ATO found fabrication. Who would have done it?
Y: I'm not aware of that.
C: So you don't know who did it.
Y: No.
C: Perhaps now is a good time for a break.
Mellor: We'll take five minutes.
Back.
C: [shows "Penalty and interest position paper"] 1.6 million dollars. Large penalty and you were a director. Co1n was in financial trouble, certainly by 2014. Were you paid for you work at Co1n?
Y: No.
C: Any money for any work for Co1n?
Y: No.
C: Did you submit invoices for the work?
Y: I think there was one project.
C: How big was it?
Y: Not very big, $60-90k.
C: [shows "Penalty and interest position paper"] 1.6 million dollars. Large penalty and you were a director. Co1n was in financial trouble, certainly by 2014. Were you paid for you work at Co1n?
Y: No.
C: Any money for any work for Co1n?
Y: No.
C: Did you submit invoices for the work?
Y: I think there was one project.
C: How big was it?
Y: Not very big, $60-90k.
C: [quotes witness statement] When you left Co1n, were you bought out?
Y: No. I had an agreement with Wright, I was not pleased, but we had an agreement of certain value, Dr Craig would purchase my shares, but I was not paid.
C: How much was it?
Y: Around $200-300k.
C: There's no mention of any payment.
Y: I didn't get paid.
Y: No. I had an agreement with Wright, I was not pleased, but we had an agreement of certain value, Dr Craig would purchase my shares, but I was not paid.
C: How much was it?
Y: Around $200-300k.
C: There's no mention of any payment.
Y: I didn't get paid.
C: This is an appendix to a filing. No employees, no rent etc. [quotes] It says Wright expects payment, and Yousuf is in regular contact with Wright seeking payment.
Y: I don't remember.
C: [shows doc] It was prepared by Wright when seeking funding to be bailed out. Were you aware of Wright getting in financial difficulties with ATO?
Y: I don't recall.
C: You were not a party to the agreement, but you can see it says [wallet], "we can pay the […] off". It says "I do not want to have challenges to IP when things start to get big", "what it could become". Wright wanted to buy out those directors before whatever he went onto became big. Accept?
Y: I can't [missed]
C: [quotes backwages etc] It says "removing him amicably now means he can't come back for a large slice later". Were you aware of Wright trying to buy you out?
Y: No.
C: Does it surprise you?
Y: No.
C: And you were in fact paid out?
Y: No, I was not paid anything?
C: So you just walked out?
Y: Yes, we had an agreement.
Y: I don't remember.
C: [shows doc] It was prepared by Wright when seeking funding to be bailed out. Were you aware of Wright getting in financial difficulties with ATO?
Y: I don't recall.
C: You were not a party to the agreement, but you can see it says [wallet], "we can pay the […] off". It says "I do not want to have challenges to IP when things start to get big", "what it could become". Wright wanted to buy out those directors before whatever he went onto became big. Accept?
Y: I can't [missed]
C: [quotes backwages etc] It says "removing him amicably now means he can't come back for a large slice later". Were you aware of Wright trying to buy you out?
Y: No.
C: Does it surprise you?
Y: No.
C: And you were in fact paid out?
Y: No, I was not paid anything?
C: So you just walked out?
Y: Yes, we had an agreement.
C: [shows email from Wright, quotes] "all these activities were inside Australia, involved supercomputer" Says it involves you. You said you had no involvement in the supercomputer. Which is true?
Y: I'm not sure what is the point of […] I was involved in the initial phase of [the company], distributed network concepts. Not sure if Wright refers to my […] as my involvement. I was not directly involved in the build-out of the supercomputer.
C: You said you had no knowledge. Are you now saying you had some knowledge?
Y: I was made aware of it, but I was not sure what it was called.
C: The email seems to say you were involved.
Y: Seems like it.
Y: I'm not sure what is the point of […] I was involved in the initial phase of [the company], distributed network concepts. Not sure if Wright refers to my […] as my involvement. I was not directly involved in the build-out of the supercomputer.
C: You said you had no knowledge. Are you now saying you had some knowledge?
Y: I was made aware of it, but I was not sure what it was called.
C: The email seems to say you were involved.
Y: Seems like it.
C: [quotes aim is to create smart money etc] Earlier it didn't sound anything like that. It doesn't reflect your work in Co1n?
Y: Correct.
C: [quotes, 2013 income year] Yousuf, 250k to be billed etc. So you were working on the supercomputer.
Y: I was not involved.
C: Wright is telling me here that you were. Are you saying [you/he] are not telling the truth?
Y: I cannot comment on that.
C: [quotes he moved in 2013-14 tax year] Here we have Wright telling KPMG you did this work. You had moved to Malaysia before July [Aus tax year]
Y: It was around that time.
C: [shows Yousuf's LinkedIn profile] You had moved by January 2013?
Y: [missed]
C: Any reason to doubt your LinkedIn profile?
Y: No.
C: Wright must have known when you moved. He must have known he wasn't telling the truth.
Y: I am not sure.
Y: Correct.
C: [quotes, 2013 income year] Yousuf, 250k to be billed etc. So you were working on the supercomputer.
Y: I was not involved.
C: Wright is telling me here that you were. Are you saying [you/he] are not telling the truth?
Y: I cannot comment on that.
C: [quotes he moved in 2013-14 tax year] Here we have Wright telling KPMG you did this work. You had moved to Malaysia before July [Aus tax year]
Y: It was around that time.
C: [shows Yousuf's LinkedIn profile] You had moved by January 2013?
Y: [missed]
C: Any reason to doubt your LinkedIn profile?
Y: No.
C: Wright must have known when you moved. He must have known he wasn't telling the truth.
Y: I am not sure.
C: Malaysia work was full time?
Y: Correct.
C: [shows email] Wright says 300k was for consulting etc, not yet paid. Agreement with Yousuf. Formal agreement?
Y: No. Craig bought my shares, that's the only agreement I recall.
C: Did he pay you?
Y: No.
C: [quotes email] Responds it has not been invoiced, there has been a formal agreement for the sale of shares. 250k in cash and in shares. You say you had an agreement but wasn't paid any of that money?
Y: Correct.
C: Why are you invoiced for work? You don't invoice for shares, but for work. What were you invoiced for Co1n?
Y: I have not invoiced anything.
C: You have no idea why Wright said there was 250k of work carried out by you?
Y: I have no idea.
C: You didn't carry out any work in the period?
Y: [missed]
C: It can't be 2013 because of your LinkedIn profile, but […] you're saying you did an invoice for no such work?
Y: That's correct. The agreement was the sale of my shares.
C: Difference between buying shares and invoicing for work.
Y: [missed]
Y: Correct.
C: [shows email] Wright says 300k was for consulting etc, not yet paid. Agreement with Yousuf. Formal agreement?
Y: No. Craig bought my shares, that's the only agreement I recall.
C: Did he pay you?
Y: No.
C: [quotes email] Responds it has not been invoiced, there has been a formal agreement for the sale of shares. 250k in cash and in shares. You say you had an agreement but wasn't paid any of that money?
Y: Correct.
C: Why are you invoiced for work? You don't invoice for shares, but for work. What were you invoiced for Co1n?
Y: I have not invoiced anything.
C: You have no idea why Wright said there was 250k of work carried out by you?
Y: I have no idea.
C: You didn't carry out any work in the period?
Y: [missed]
C: It can't be 2013 because of your LinkedIn profile, but […] you're saying you did an invoice for no such work?
Y: That's correct. The agreement was the sale of my shares.
C: Difference between buying shares and invoicing for work.
Y: [missed]
Y: My Lord, may I ask how much more time you need? I have an appointment
C: I don't need much more time. Was the 250k agreement a sham you agreed with Wright?
Y: I cannot comment on that on the intention of Wright.
C: I'm asking if you were involved. Did you chase him for any work to be paid?
Y: No.
C: I don't need much more time. Was the 250k agreement a sham you agreed with Wright?
Y: I cannot comment on that on the intention of Wright.
C: I'm asking if you were involved. Did you chase him for any work to be paid?
Y: No.
C: [quotes email] Wright says he has emails and details of the agreement to pay. Agreement with Chinese company etc. There is no way you could have had a genuine invoice for 250k of work. Do you accept that?
Y: I have not invoiced anything to Co1n.
C: Why is Wright saying you have?
Gr: The witness can't answer that question.
Mellor: You're getting close to the point where you have done this to death.
C: Here's an email, 2014. You were still receiving emails.
Y: That's correct.
C: [quotes finalized agreement] Your response is another 2 months. You're saying none of this happened?
Y: This is me signing off, and they're buying my shares.
Y: I have not invoiced anything to Co1n.
C: Why is Wright saying you have?
Gr: The witness can't answer that question.
Mellor: You're getting close to the point where you have done this to death.
C: Here's an email, 2014. You were still receiving emails.
Y: That's correct.
C: [quotes finalized agreement] Your response is another 2 months. You're saying none of this happened?
Y: This is me signing off, and they're buying my shares.
C: Email from you, still using for [Co1n] email at this point. Do you remember the Skype conversation you had with Wright?
Y: No, but it seems like my Skype account.
C: [quotes] 250k charged for the services, or for the shares. Wright responds [missed] Do you accept that?
Y: That's not correct. It's my contribution [missed] That's what Craig is referring.
C: You say Craig could be Satoshi. Are you aware that many others have been suggested as Satoshi? [lists names] You didn't research all these other individuals?
Y: No, I don't know any of them.
C: You can only speculate on Craig being Satoshi because he has told you.
Y: That's not […] My Lord.
Y: No, but it seems like my Skype account.
C: [quotes] 250k charged for the services, or for the shares. Wright responds [missed] Do you accept that?
Y: That's not correct. It's my contribution [missed] That's what Craig is referring.
C: You say Craig could be Satoshi. Are you aware that many others have been suggested as Satoshi? [lists names] You didn't research all these other individuals?
Y: No, I don't know any of them.
C: You can only speculate on Craig being Satoshi because he has told you.
Y: That's not […] My Lord.
Gunning has nothing for him. Mellor releases him from his oath, hoping he reaches his appointment.
Gr: Credibility of Wright hasn't been put to him. No point in me standing up and objecting.
C: Yousuf was a director with fiduciary duties. It was clear he had nothing.
Gr: there was a plausible cause for the examination. Document 6565 has not been analyzed with Lynch or Placks. Placks has analyzed a version of TimeCoin wp. We don't know if this is forensically the same as 6565.
Hough: It's different in content. It's Papa Neema, discussed in Sherrell20.
Gr: We're done for the day. Tomorrow we have 3 more witnesses. Morgan, Archibald, Jones.
Gunning: I made an offer to [missed]
Mellor: I need time to think about that. Nothing else for today then.
Thanks for reading!
Gr: Credibility of Wright hasn't been put to him. No point in me standing up and objecting.
C: Yousuf was a director with fiduciary duties. It was clear he had nothing.
Gr: there was a plausible cause for the examination. Document 6565 has not been analyzed with Lynch or Placks. Placks has analyzed a version of TimeCoin wp. We don't know if this is forensically the same as 6565.
Hough: It's different in content. It's Papa Neema, discussed in Sherrell20.
Gr: We're done for the day. Tomorrow we have 3 more witnesses. Morgan, Archibald, Jones.
Gunning: I made an offer to [missed]
Mellor: I need time to think about that. Nothing else for today then.
Thanks for reading!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
