Does Craig Wright Have Access to Encrypted Satoshi Files With Private Keys for $7.5B in BTC?

The class-action lawsuit filed by the Kleiman Estate against Craig Wright, the self-proclaimed Bitcoin creator and former partner of late Dave Kleiman has seen several twists and turns with no definitive outcome.

Kleiman Estate is suing Wright to get access to the Bitcoin mined by Wright in partnership with Dave Kleiman, while Wright maintains there was no such partnership.

The latest twist in the case came from the Kleiman Estate, which now claims that Wright had access to the Encrypted Files believed to be those of Satoshi, which contains private keys associated with 820,000 Bitcoin. The Estate filed a new court document on 21st May claiming Wright has the access to Encrypted Files but he won’t do so since it contains clear evidence of his partnership with Dave.

The court document claimed that $1.6 million worth of Bitcoin has been spent from the addresses submitted to the court as a proof suggesting Wright has access to those private keys. It also points to the threats made by Wright about crashing the Bitcoin market, which is only possible by a large amount of dump in the market.

Craig Wright has since submitted a list of 16,404 BTC addresses to prove his claim of being the owner. However, Kleiman’s Estate claimed that this is one of the three batches of addresses which Wright has access to and the fact that a significant amount of BTC has been spent from these addresses “is incontrovertible evidence that Wright has either:

  • Submitted a fraudulent/incomplete list of his bitcoin as the CSW Filed List and/or
  • He does have access to a list of his bitcoin and the private keys associated with them and is lying.

The legal team further points out that Craig Wright throughout the case has lied, submitted misleading filings, caused obstruction with forged evidence are clear signs that Wright has access to the Encrypted files.

Kleiman Estate Lists Lies and Perjuries of Wright

The legal court document also lists four instances where Wright has either lied during the case or submitted forged documents. The one being just last week where Wright has submitted a forged divorce document.

The document claimed that Wright’s wife too lied about the claims of his husband since she is financially dependent on him and thus had clear reasons to do that. The document also claimed that she has lied in the past.

The Kleiman Estate in its legal filing also criticised the court for being soft on Wright and only putting sanctions despite him showing no respect for the legal procedure and the court, as evident from his continuous lying. They appealed to the court to take strict action against the accused to keep him in check. The court filings read:

“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue an order pursuant to its inherent powers striking Dr. Wright’s Amended Answer and entering a default judgment against Dr. Wright.”

Read Original/a>
Author: Rebecca Asseh

Visa Files for a Centralized Digital Dollar Patent; Putting Fiat Currencies on Blockchain

Visa, a multinational payments service provider, has filed a patent to create a digital dollar based on blockchain tech with oversight from centralized computers. The US patent & Trademark office revealed the details of this application on May 14. However, Visa initially filed for the patent back in November 2019.

According to the publication, this idea is not solely based on the US dollar. Visa highlighted that the patent involves other currencies as well such that any central bank can smoothly transition to the digital form of its base currency. Dubbed the ‘Digital Fiat Currency’, it was filed in conjunction with inventors Alexander Pierre and Simon J. Hurry.

The Digital Dollar Technical Aspect

Visa has since mentioned the possibility of leveraging Ethereum’s blockchain for this development. The proposed infrastructure design encompasses two records meant to facilitate a transparent conversion from fiat to digital. One is tasked to ensure that a digital denomination has been created while the other records that a corresponding fiat amount is removed from circulation,

“…every time a dollar worth of digital fiat currency is generated, the central entity ensures that a corresponding physical dollar bill is removed from circulation, in order to regulate the value of the digital fiat currency.”

The application goes on to tout cryptocurrencies as a viable solution given the cost-friendly nature and immutability aspects embedded within blockchain ecosystems. However, Visa, did not maintain the fundamental nature of blockchain decentralization as per the application. In fact, it further suggests that the centralized entity approach could be the answer for implementing monetary policy in digital markets.

Following this approach, Visa’s patent was praised by the former chairman of US Commodity Futures Trading Commision (CFTC), Christopher Giancarlo. He noted that the patent is a major statement from both private and public stakeholders in the US,

“This confirms when the U.S. does big things like the space program and the Internet, there are partnerships between the private and public sector. This patent filing is evidence the private sector is very much at work on the future of money.”

Visa’s Recent Scaling in Blockchain and Crypto Activity

As the world navigates living with Covid-19, payment service providers have been on their toes to match the current needs. This has somewhat favored the crypto market which many were initially skeptical about. Visa’s latest milestone within this space is the inclusion of Coinbase as one of its principal members. This alliance has seen Coinbase pioneer debit cards for crypto spending with the help of Visa. The firm also runs a FinTech Fast Track Program supporting startups within this industry based on Visa’s resources.

Despite this success, the digital dollar patent does not guarantee a solution in monetary policy or regulatory oversight. A Visa spokesperson told Forbes that not every patent result in a new product but the firm strives to respect intellectual property,

“While not all patents will result in new products or features, Visa respects intellectual property and we are actively working to protect our ecosystem, our innovations and the Visa brand.”

Read Original/a>
Author: Edwin Munyui

China Moves Closer to Issuing its Digital Currency in the Face of Coronavirus: Report

  • Alibaba, the company involved in the development of China’s digital currency filed for a patent related to the digital currency
  • The news came hot on the heels of new coronavirus bill in Congress proposing a digital dollar

The People’s Bank of China is getting nearer to releasing its digital currency, reports The Global Times.

According to the latest report, China’s central bank in collaboration with private companies has completed the development of the basic function of the autonomous digital currency and is now drafting laws for its circulation.

Many companies in the private sector, most located in Shenzhen such as Alibaba, Huawei, Tencent, and China Merchant Bank are the participants in the development of China’s digital currency.

Alibaba’s financial arm, Alipay, has made public 5 patents pertinent to China’s  digital currency from 1/21 to 3/17.

The patents address digital wallets, issuance, transaction recording, and anti-money laundering aspects of the digital currency.

The next step in this process is working with financial services and regulators of insurance as well as passing legislation that could be lengthy and as such no exact date has been set for the launch.

Coronavirus Pandemic Pushing for the Need of Digital Currency

This report came close on the heels of the US considering creating a digital dollar to save the US economy from the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. The virtual greenback could be used to send payments of $1,000 for minors and $2,000 to legal adults.

Both the draft bills “Take Responsibility for Workers and Families Act” and the “Financial Protections and Assistance for America’s Consumers, States, Businesses, and Vulnerable Populations Act,” suggest the creation of a digital dollar.

Digital currency is seen as the “most convenient tool” to translate central banks’ zero and negative interest policy to commercial banks.

Citing the industry insiders, the Global Times also reported China should accelerate the availability of its digital currency as interest rates are driven into negative territory around the world to improve liquidity in the market amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

According to Cao Yan, vice director of the Advanced Research Institute of Blockchain, the central bank should accelerate the launch of its CBDC due to the Covid-19 global pandemic. Cao said,

“If there is a chance China is considering lowering its interest rate into negative territory as a final option and directing such policy to commercial loans and lending, a circulated digital currency rather than M0 will be able to achieve that.”

He believes the development of the digital currency would be more efficient if the bank works with private institutions that are involved with blockchain technology and 3rd party payment processes.

Read Original/a>
Author: AnTy

Brave Files GDPR Complaint To Enforce Privacy Laws Against Google’s Data Monopoly

Privacy eccentric browser, Brave, filed a formal GDPR complaint to European authorities on Google’s violation of the Act and its own privacy policies. Ireland, the headquarters of the European data privacy regulators, U.K, France and Germany have all received the complaint, with Dr. Johnny Ryan, Brave Chief Policy Officer, leading the charge.

Brave files formal GDPR complaint against Google

Dr. Ryan wrote on Twitter on Mar. 16 that Brave browser filed a formal complaint to relevant European authorities on Google’s infringement of Article 5 (1) of the General Data Privacy Regulations (GDPR) Act and its own privacy policies. The Act puts forward the “purpose limitation” principle which states that companies should only use data collected for a specific purpose for that purpose only. Dr. Johnny Ryan said,

“But merely having everyone’s personal data does not mean Google is allowed to use that data across its entire business, for whatever purposes it wants. Rather, it has to seek a legal basis for each specific purpose, and be transparent about them.”

For example, Google Weather should only use your location data to better your experience in giving accurate weather predictions and not anything else. If they wish to use the data for something else, then they need to formally apply from the authorities to extend their scope.

Google’s internal free data for all

However, according to Brave’s complaint, Google’s free data for all policy, violates the set rule as it spreads data across a number of websites, advertisers, apps and operating systems. According to a study by Brave, “Inside the Black Box”, Google “collects personal data from integrations with websites, apps, and operating systems, for hundreds ill-defined processing purposes.”

Vaguely defining the purposes has seen Google share users’ data across a number of purposes with in turn violated the GDPR Act. Ryan said,

“Brave’s new evidence reveals that Google reuses our personal data between its businesses and products in bewildering ways that infringe the purpose limitation principle. Google’s internal data free-for-all infringes the GDPR”.

Why is the filing important?

Well, the widespread data privacy issues hanging in the balance of this formal complaint are gigantic to future privacy laws on data. According to the complaint, a ruling in favor of Brave’s proposition and Google’s enforcement of the GDPR would “be tantamount to a functional separation, giving everyone the power to decide what parts of Google they chose to reward with their data.”

This will increase the privacy of your data and kill off the monopoly around Google’s internal data free for all policy.

Read Original/a>
Author: Lujan Odera

People’s Bank of China Has Filed 84 Digital Payment Patents For CBDC’s: Report

According to the Chamber of Digital Commerce, China has filed 84 patents for the digital yuan, its new upcoming digital currency.

The patents date to 2017 and are credited to the People’s Bank of China’s (PBoC) Digital Currency Institute. They were filed to the Chinese Patent Office (SIPO) and indicate some important aspects like the one where the Chinese government is able to alter the currencies supply after some specific events like interest rates going up, or the one of integration with traditional bank accounts while the connection with digital currency chips cars or digital wallets is still possible.

The Chinese Government Will Track Down Transactions

The patent applications are related to the integration of the digital currency in the already existing banking infrastructure. This is what Mark Kaufman, the patent attorneys for Rimon Law and a former employee of the Chamber of Digital Commerce said about them:

“Virtually all of these patent applications relate to integrating a system of digital currency into the existing banking infrastructure.”

Meanwhile, the Chamber’s president, Perianne Boring, mentioned how a mechanism that’s able to stop the tracking of transaction by the Chinese government doesn’t exist yet.

Will Other Governments Take China’s Example?

In November 2019, Mu Changchun, the head of PBoC’s Digital Currency Institute, spoke at a Singapore conference and said:

“We are not seeking full control of the information of the general public.”

The newly filed patents come only to prove that the Chinese government is committed to issue a digital currency, which may convince other governments to take action in the same direction. For example, the Japanese government recently talked about China’s digital yuan and Facebook’s Libra, saying these should be combated with a digital currency released by Japan. Norihiro Nakayama, the foreign affairs parliamentary vice-president of Japan said,

“China is moving toward issuing digital yuan, so we’d like to propose measures to counter such attempts.”

Will the US Release Its Own Digital Currency?

There have been signs that the US may be considering issuing its own digital currency too, as Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve Chairman, said on Tuesday that this matter needs to have an answer and that:

“We’re working hard on it.”

Read Original/a>
Author: Oana Ularu

Chamber of Digital Commerce And The Blockchain Association Side With Telegram In SEC GRAM Case

An amicus brief was just filed by the Chamber of Digital Commerce in the continuing legal battle between the SEC (United States Securities Exchange) and Telegram.

The document which was filed on January 21st was authored by one Lilya Tessler, the current head of Sidley Austin LLP, based in New York, and counsel to the Chamber.

An amicus brief is a legitimate paper that enables a non-litigant to provide their opinion or expertise in an ongoing case. Lilya states that the Chamber was interested in providing arguments on how the U.S District for the Southern District of New York ought to consider crypto assets.

Established in 2014, the Chamber is a not for profit organization that seeks to promote the use of crypto assets and any other technology based on blockchain infrastructure. The Chamber, as part of its undertaking, has been able to create numerous crypto and blockchain-related advocacy groups such as the Token Alliance and the Blockchain Alliance.

Digital Chamber of Commerce Asks for Clarity Pertaining to Investment Contracts

Taking into account the position they have taken on blockchain technology, the Chamber insisted that it was not looking to state whether the $1.7 billion Gram token sales could be considered a securities transaction.

Rather, it was interested in ensuring that there was enough transparency when it came to regulations pertaining to cryptocurrencies. It went on to state that:

“Although the Chamber does not have a view on whether the offer and sale of Grams is a securities transaction, the Chamber has an interest in ensuring that the legal framework applied to digital assets underlying an investment contract is clear and consistent.”

The Chamber then went on to ask the court to try and define what a digital asset was, in reference to investment contracts, and the securities transactions which may have been associated with it. According to the association, there were two approaches to making an analysis regarding the issue at hand, including determining whether such a commodity could be offloaded in a normal commercial transaction.

The Blockchain Association Also Files Amicus Brief In Favor of Telegram’s GRAM

Not only did Chamber of Digital Commerce step up to provide insight into the case, but The Blockchain Association (which includes industry giants like Coinbase, Ripple, Circle, and more) to provide third party perspective to the judge. Also filed on Jan 21st, stating:

“The SEC’s lawsuit also raises novel questions regarding whether companies are forbidden from raising funds from sophisticated U.S. investors, under well-established regulatory provisions, to build blockchain networks.”

“The Court’s answers to these questions will influence companies’ decisions about whether to introduce blockchain products, investors’ decisions about whether to support this new technology, and innovators’ decisions about whether to base their companies in the U.S. or abroad. Before filing this action, the SEC had provided no clear rules regarding these questions. And what little guidance it had offered differs drastically from both existing law and its position in this case.”

As you can see from the statement above, the Blockchain Association wants the court to carefully consider the actions presented as they will have lasting impacts on not only Telegram but past and future endeavors.

“The Court’s decision regarding whether Grams themselves were securities at the time of the Purchase Agreement (before Grams even existed) could have far-reaching effects throughout the industry.”

The Blockchain Association and the Chamber of Digital Commerce are both saying that the fault lies at the hands of the regulations put in place. They are not adequate and up-to-date enough to deal with today’s technology innovations as many people feel the same about their stance on Tax regulations. The Association went on to say:

“The Court should not block a long-planned, highly anticipated product launch by interfering with a contract between sophisticated private parties. Doing so would needlessly harm the investors that securities laws were designed to protect.”

What are your thoughts on the case? Are the two amicus briefs that were filed yesterday correct in saying that the courts shouldn’t tread lightly. Or do you feel this is a clear case of securities violations?

Read Original/a>
Author: Daniel W

SEC Files an Emergency Motion to Know How Telegram Spent $1.7 Billion After Company’s Refusal

  • US SEC filed an emergency motion to know how much it spent and in what manner the Telegram Messenger application will be integrated with the TON blockchain
  • But Telegram refuses to disclose its bank records and answer relevant questions
  • Last year, the SEC announced that Telegram and its Gram (GRM) token sale is an unregistered digital token offering

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a court order on Jan. 2 asking a New York federal judge to compel messaging platform Telegram Group Inc. to hand over the details of how the alleged $1.7 billion raised in its Initial Coin Offering (ICO) have been spent.

In the emergency file motion filed on Thursday in the US District Court for the Southern District of NewYork, the SEC claims that the bank records are highly relevant to the ongoing case against Telegram, alleging the digital asset class was an unregistered securities offering.

“The requested bank records are highly relevant to the issues in dispute in this case, including how much money Telegram has spent, and in what manner, in developing the TON Blockchain, the Telegram Messenger application to be integrated with the TON Blockchain, and related applications.”

As per the filing, the agency is requesting for both documentation and testimony from Telegram regarding the use of the funds raised from investors and sources. SEC’s motion states,

“Defendants are now refusing to disclose the bank records concerning how they have spent the $1.7 billion they raised from investors in the past two years and to answer questions about the disposition of investor funds.”

Back in October, the SEC announced that Telegram and its Gram (GRM) token sale constitutes an unregistered digital token offering and consider it “unlawful”. The regulator filed a restraining order against the company and Telegram Open Network (TON).

At the time, Stephanie Avakian, the co-director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement said,

“Our emergency action today is intended to prevent Telegram from flooding the U.S. markets with digital tokens that we allege were unlawfully sold.”

This resulted in a delay in the launch of the TON blockchain.

Read Original/a>
Author: AnTy

Self-Proclaimed Bitcoin Inventor, Craig Wright, Fails To Settle Kleiman Case Due To Lack Of Funds

Court documents filed recently in Florida show that Craig Wright, who claims to be the famous Satoshi Nakamoto, who is credited to have invented Bitcoin, now says he has no funds to settle his case with David Kleiman.

According to Cointelegraph, Wright told the complainant that he was pulling off an earlier out-of-the court settlement agreement as he was unable to meet the 500,000 BTC ($4.5 billion) needed.

The case has been brought back to the court by Kleiman’s lawyer and seeks to compel Wright to settle the agreement or the case goes to full trial.

After signs that the case was coming to an amicable solution, Kleiman halted active proceedings to focus on how the issue would be settled even agreeing to prolong the settlement time to the end of October. However, as court documents indicate, Wright has broken the settlement agreement.

The court documents have been filed by Ira Kleiman who instituted the charges last year accusing Wright of falsifying enterprise documents as well as other documents with the intention of defrauding the estate of David Kleiman, his late brother.

In August, Wright was found to be in contempt of court for his failure to divulge the amount of Bitcoins he holds which reportedly are about 1.1 million, CoinDesk reports.

After the hearing commenced, Wright told the court that he was unable to access his Bitcoin as the death of David Kleiman, his former business counterpart, affected some of the wallet logins. However, the court dismissed the claim saying that Wright’s arguments were inconsistent.

The court documents show that Wright did not give a notice before he broke the non-binding agreement.

Wright had at an earlier time bid to be given extra time to confront the judge’s sanctions giving an excuse of the approaching Hurricane Dorian.

In related news, Wright has severally explained that Satoshi Nakamoto, credited for starting the Bitcoin and crypto movement, copied his white paper.

Keep it here as we follow the proceedings and relay them directly to you as the case goes on.

Read Original/a>
Author: Joseph Kibe

Onecoin Victims Denied by Court for Alternative Service Request on ‘Crypto Queen’ And Two Others

The New York Southern District Court has denied a request filed against alleged fraudulent digital currency scheme OneCoin and other individual defendants linked to the scheme. The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit about one month ago with the hope of being awarded damages arising from the fraudulent and for alternative service of their complaint. Judge Valerie E. Caproni nixed the plaintiff’s request through an order signed yesterday, November 1, 2019.

In the lawsuit dated October 1, 2019, lead plaintiff Donald Berdeaux and plaintiff Christine Grablis filed a Motion for Leave to Effectuate Alternative Electronic Services upon the four defendants; Sebastian Greenwood, OneCoin Ltd, Irina Andreeva Dilinska, and Ruja Ignatova. The plaintiffs proposed alternative services on the defendant OneCoin via social media and Federal Express to the company’s Dubai office, email to [email protected], and [email protected]

The plaintiffs further claim that they were unable to find addresses that would effectuate services on defendants Dikinska, Greenwood, and Ignatova by traditional means provided for under Rule (2) and (4)(f)(1). These three defendants have been executive employees of OneCoin and apparently operates in Europe. Their locations are, however, yet to be known, and as a result, the plaintiffs have proposed service on the three defendants via Federal Express to OneCoin offices and by email to their known addresses.

The court noted that the plaintiffs lacked to provide proof that the proposed email was functional and practical for use. The website, which also matches the proposed email seems to be nonfunctional. The plaintiffs were advised by the court to address the concerns in a new alternative service application.

Judge Valerie E. Caproni said in the ruling that,

“the court denies the plaintiffs’ motion because they did not show that they had taken all reasonable steps to serve the defendants.”

The court was skeptical that The plaintiffs’ proposals on alternative means of service meeting due process was a concern for the court. The plaintiffs stated that OneCoins address is listed as the United Arab Emirates address. OneCoin’s registered office to persuade the court but lacked to provide evidence to support the assertion.

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit represent all those individuals who transferred cryptocurrencies or fiat currency either directly or indirectly to the defendants OneCoin in which to invest in their Trade Packages and suffered monetary injuries as a result. The lawsuits backdate to all transfers made from April 2014 to March 2018.

Read Original/a>
Author: Denis Miriti

Bitfinex and Tether Lawsuit Analysis: The Severity of Roche Freedman’s Case

Stablecoin firm Tether and its associate exchange Bitfinex have received a suit filed by a New York-based legal firm Roche Freedman against Tether token (USDT, stating that it is engaged with market manipulation as the consequence of an unpublished paper. The case encloses that the above-mentioned firms were involved in a “sophisticated scheme” on account of “part-fraud, part-pump-and-dump, and part-money laundering.” We see a significant decrease of approximately 10% as of press time in the market value of the USDT/BTC trade pair because of this lawful dramatization.

Roche Freedman believes that the Tether’s case of all its Tether tokens (USDT) equaling to one U.S dollar is an unmitigated lie. According to the suit, it guarantees that the firm under question has consistently been giving huge amounts of unbacked tokens to not only control the local crypto market but also the digital resource showcase at large. The agents for Tether and Bitfinex gave separate articulations asserting that they have been made aware of an unreleased paper blaming them for controlling the digital currency market. The statements were made just a couple of days before the lawsuit was declared open. The organizations guaranteed that the claims were ridiculous and that if such an article is presented in court against them, they were going to protect themselves.

Regarding the matter of whether these recent charges are authentic, Braden Perry – a government investigation attorney calls for attention to the case that it does not uncover anything new given that the Justice Department and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have been investigating the two firms for quite a while. In any case, these are just claims and no defense has yet been witnessed. He accepts that no genuine damage should originate if the lawsuit is filed. But if any data that confirms these cases ends up open sooner or later, at that point Bitfinex and Tether will no doubt experience some genuine reputational harm.

Daniel Ameduri, writer of “Don’t Save for Retirement: A Millennial’s Guide to Financial Freedom,” was contacted by Conitelegraph to reveal some insight into the circumstances. He believes that the case will probably fail due to the absence of sheer insights.

Felix Shipkevic, an attorney told Cointelegraph that it wasn’t astonishing to find a legal suit against both Tether and Bitfinex considering the lawful interest these firms have received by the New York lawyers over the previous year. Not just that, Felix believes that it will be very hard for the firms to back their charges of crypto market control as they will need to show rationale to manipulate and gain from the damages.

The case thereby highlights that the stablecoin market is in critical need of specific guidelines that can keep such occasions from surfacing again later on.

Read Original/a>
Author: Sritanshu Sinha