If you are very bored and like reading High Court written judgements, follow this link.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/COPA-v-Wright-Judgment.pdf
Warning: It is not pretty and paints the defendant in a very poor light. I'm not convinced with the ruling, largely because it follows the collective narrative so perfectly and feel the judge may well be unconsciously supporting it being unaware of the shenanigans we all know have been happening.
To be fair to the judge Wright failed, deliberately or because he had no choice for some proximate reason, to show any convincing evidence. The judge knew this pre trial and was kindly giving Wright an opportunity during the trial to deliver.
Wright could well be a serial forger or the unluckiest man alive.
My view is that due to an important new point of law on property rights, to do with linking identity to the crypto assets, meaning that crypto assets are identical in nature to any other property in law, Wright is sticking hard and fast to his principles. That is to say, Wright is determined to make this point of law stick which will happen if he can get a court to successfully test it during a trial and make it a common precedent.
Wright has already made a lot of way on related matters during the Tulip Trading case where he wants to see bitcoin developers made fiduciaries. The appeal court has declared it needs serious scrutiny where Wright is claiming that in law the Bitcoin software developers (who basically rule the roost and have effectively centralised BTC as a form of quasi-government) have a fiduciary duty to the owners of Bitcoin. Meaning that if coins are lost or stolen, the developers have a duty to put that straight by allowing re-assignment of the coins through their software to the legal owner via court order. Right up my street!
This is politically and philosophically a disaster for the crypto world(the criminal part) and would undermine the naughty guys business in totality. So the stakes are very very high. Crypto is a multi trillion business. And if the regulated institutions are already in on the game, probably unawares, one can see how second order effects could sway the judge. Also Mr. Justice Mellor, judge in both cases was the one who had the Tulip case handed back down from the appeal court, quite an embarrassment for a KC and Lord perhaps hoping to continue his rise. So its in danger of becoming personal because we're all human. Not to mention that Wright, being high on the spectrum, is definitely evasive and a difficult character in social conflict situations and often amusingly has pointed out what poor quality are the officers of the court and their expert witnesses. They do say it's good advice to 'dress well' if you are a defendant going before a judge. I was in court for this trial and indeed, Wright dressed impeccably if not in slightly poor taste. But I use the term dress as a deadly serious metaphor to be taken very seriously.
I think this principle in law on property rights is all Wright cares about and he's making a lot of mistakes on the way - we all make mistakes and who would be surprised about this, except that its ultra highly visible socially.
Whatever is the truth, Wright is certainly a brave and principled soul.