Forensic Analysis Exposes Flaws in Craig Wright's Tulip Trust Deed

37. The Tulip Trust Deed (Particulars of Claim at [66A] {A/2/10}) ({ID_001186}) / {L8/20/1}) The Fifth Pleaded Example

728. In the Kleiman Litigation, Dr Wright proffered a Deed of Trust document as evidence of the existence of a trust called the Tulip Trust. Dr Wright has claimed that the Tulip Trust held Bitcoin and/or an encrypted file with keys to that Bitcoin. The Deed of Trust document that was adduced by Dr Wright was dated 23 October 2012.

(a) COPA’s Reasons for Alleging Forgery

729. The date of 23 October 2012 was false. Computer forensic analysis of this document shows that it was backdated and that it was not created until at least 22 May 2015 (over two years after the death of David Kleiman on 26 April 2013). This document was therefore forged. As to the basis on which the Claimant alleges forgery, the Claimant relies on the above matters and the fact that this Deed of Trust document was found to be backdated in the Order of Justice Reinhart dated 27 August 2019.

730. A copy of this document is at C00000560 {L8/17/1}, which was included in the Extended Disclosure served on 7 March 2023. The Re-Re-Amended Defence was served on 20 April 2023.

(b) Dr Wright’s Explanations and COPA’s Rebuttal

731. The document appears as a Deed of Trust between two Seychelles companies, Wright International Investments (“WIIL”) and Tulip Trading Ltd (“TTL”) with a date of 23 October 2012.

732. In Wright11 Appendix C, Dr Wright addressed this 23 October 2012 Deed of Trust document by reference to one particular version of it. There are a number of copies disclosed which are all identical in substance:

732.1. (C00000560) / {L8/17/1} – (includes the Kleiman case reference at the top).

732.2. (ID_001186) / {L8/20/1};

732.3. (ID_003790) / {L8/28/1};

732.4. (ID_003982) / {L8/14/1}; and

732.5. (ID_003329) / L15/86/1} – this is the version Dr Wright refers to in Wright11.

733. Mr Madden addresses the identical nature of the above documents in PM48, {H/304/8}. In PM48, Mr Madden notes that the documents analysed indicate that WIIL was purchased as an aged shelf company in 2014, not being active prior to that date: PM48 at [29] {H/304/9}. Mr Madden also notes the effect of similar analysis in respect of other similar documents relating to TTL (PM4 [119-127], {H/29/38}).

734. In his Defence (after various amendments), Dr Wright states that, pursuant to an order of the US Court in the Kleiman proceedings, he disclosed a copy of a Deed of Trust document between two Seychelles companies, WIIL and TTL, with a date of 23 October 2012 (Defence [85A(1)] {A/3/26}. Dr Wright claims that: “The date 23 October 2012 is not a false date as the Deed of Trust was executed on 23 October 2012” (Defence [85A(5)] {A/3/27}.

735. In Wright11, Dr Wright gives the following account. He says that he set up the trust structure with the intention that he did not have any rights to see documents until 2020 (Wright11 Appendix C, [6.6] {CSW/3/14}). Dr Wright says that Dianne Pinder of Lloyds solicitors in Brisbane Australia drafted a deed of trust to replace a former trust structure that had been set up in such a way that he did not have a right to see documents until 2020 (Wright11 Appendix C, [6.6] {CSW/3/14}). Dr Wright says that, as he was not a party to the Tulip Trust Deed, he can only comment on what appears on the face of the documents, and that the version at {ID_003329} is not the trust deed for the Tulip Trust (Wright11 Appendix C, [6.11] {CSW/3/15}). The position stated in Wright11 therefore appears to be that, whilst a trust was settled on 23 October 2012 which was called the Tulip Trust, the disclosed versions set out above do not represent the deed of that trust or record its terms.

736. Dr Wright further states in Wright11 that he thinks that the version at {ID_003329} has been doctored by someone, as some of the parties acting for Savannah Ltd as noted in the document held no authority with the company, which he did not find out until after 2022 (Wright11 Appendix C, [6.12] {CSW/3/15}).

737. In his oral evidence at trial, Dr Wright at first accepted that he had sworn in the Kleiman proceedings that the Tulip Trust Deed put to him in those proceedings (which was the version at {L8/17/1}) was an authentic document {Day4/107:4} to {Day4/109:5}. However, he then went on to say that it does not record the terms of the trust. He said that this particular Tulip Trust Deed is not a real document and that it is not part of the trust. Dr Wright claimed that he told the Judge in Kleiman that it was a real document but that he did not know any different to say otherwise at that time: {Day4/109:2} to {Day4/112:2}. He claimed that he had subsequently spoken to some of the individuals whose signatures appear on this Tulip Trust Deed and they told him that they did not sign it: {Day4/113:6}.

738. Dr Wright claimed that this particular version of the Tulip Trust Deed was formed by someone merging documents together: {Day4/114:5}. Dr Wright said that it was a fake document used by Ira Kleiman, and that there had never been any agreement made between Wright International and Tulip Trading: {Day4/115:10} to {Day4/115/20}.

739. COPA submitted that Dr Wright’s explanation should be rejected for the following reasons:

739.1. On Dr Wright’s own admission, the Tulip Trust Deed is not a genuine document on the basis that (on his account) (i) there never has been any agreement between WIIL and TTL at all; (ii) the signatures are said not to be genuine; and (iii) the terms do not reflect what he understood to be the terms of the Tulip Trust Deed actually executed on 23 October 2012. It is, however, remarkable that he failed to mention this in his Re-Amended Defence.

739.2. There is no evidence of any of other version of the Tulip Trust Deed dated to 23 October 2012 with different terms. Dr Wright has not brought any of those who are said to deny signing this deed to Court as witnesses, nor has he called anyone as a witness to say what the “real” terms of the Tulip Trust are.

739.3. WIIL is purportedly a party to the Tulip Trust Deed, but that company was only first purchased as an off the shelf company by Dr Wright in October 2014. Mr Madden's findings in Appendix PM48 to the effect that alteration of documents supports that proposition {H/304/9} were not challenged in cross-examination.

739.4. Paragraph 3 of this Tulip Trust Deed {L8/17/2} refers to bitcoin having been transferred into TTL on 10 June 2011, although that company likewise was not purchased until October 2014 (as explained in relation to {ID_001421} and {ID_001930} in COPA’s original Forgeries Schedule at {A/2/91} and {A/2/101}.

739.5. There is nothing in the terms of this trust (as recorded in this Deed) to say that trust documents cannot be shown to Dr Wright. He claimed that he did not know the terms of the document, but also that those terms precluded him from talking directly to any of the individuals involved. He then said that he had spoken to them and found out that the signatures on the document were not genuine. Dr Wright's evidence about this document, and the Tulip Trust more generally, has been confused and internally inconsistent. In particular, he has invented the excuse of having been precluded from seeing the document to explain away his having sworn to its authenticity in the Kleiman proceedings and made a sworn declaration based on its terms, but then having denied its authenticity in the Granath proceedings. See generally: {Day3/105:2} to {Day3/119:5}.

(c) Conclusions

740. I found Dr Wright’s contorted explanations to be wholly unconvincing and false, including his final excuse that this document was ‘doctored by someone’.

741. There is strong evidence that (and I so find) both Tulip Trading Limited and Wright International Investments Ltd were acquired by Dr Wright in 2014 as aged shelf companies, and that the ‘Tulip Trust’ itself was a fabrication designed to shield Dr Wright’s assets against possible bankruptcy. Dr Wright’s explanations of the terms of the Trust were inconsistent and did not ring true. He has never explained the plain inconsistency between his assertion that the Trust put his assets (including his IP in various documents) beyond reach, yet his continued ability apparently to reference and use all such documents to yield the large number of ‘White Papers’ which are said to have given rise to all the claimed patent filings for nChain.