In a turn of events, the lawsuit going on between Dave Kleiman estate and Craig Wright, his former partner, who is the self-proclaimed creator of Bitcoin, has recently made accusations about those who are funding Kleiman’s litigations: Tether and Kraken.
Recently, Craig Wright unequivocally stated Tether, the issuer of stablecoin, and Kraken, the cryptocurrency exchange based in the U.S are the entities funding his former partner estate.
Craig Wright, the chief scientist in nChain
Moreover, Wright denied that Calvin Ayre, the online gambling Bodog’s founder is funding him in his litigation. It is worth noting that Calvin Ayre is the funds behind nChain, SV (BSV) cryptocurrency developer, and Craig Wright is the chief scientist in nChain.
After presenting the form of “Power of Attorney”, Kleiman’s attorney Velvel Freedman, during deposition inquired if nChain, Wright’s company was funding his legal bills and if nChain has any stakes in the ongoing litigation. Wright responded that the document is an agreement of standard intellectual property between employer and employees and no, the company does not have any stakes in the litigation.
Kraken and Tether involvement
Then Andres Rivero, Attorney of Wright intervened and objected to the form. Then the attorney of Kleiman rephrased his question and asked whether nChain can control the ongoing litigation in terms of intellectual property?
Right then Wright dropped his wild card and replied that nChain has no involvement in the litigation; however, he is aware of those who are presently funding Mr. Kleiman, and they are Kraken and Tether, who seek to shut him down, as their entire existence in their Ponzi scheme requires him to be viewed as a fraud.
After this, Kleiman’s attorney asked his then who is paying his legal defense in the ongoing case, to which he replied that his legal Defense is paid by him to his 13 lawyers. To which Kleiman’s attorney again asked that whether he is paying directly for the representation, at this moment, Wright’s attorney intervened again objected on the ground of relevance.
