Crypto News and Signals

The story behind 1Feex wallet and Craig Wright FRAUD

36 min read

On the picture above is a “fake paper” wallet for the 1Feex address.

A paper wallet is an offline way (also known as cold storage) for storing Bitcoin or any other crypto, to keep one’s Bitcoin holdings safe from hackers, keylogers, trojan or other way hackers use to steal your crypto. The image apears to shows, a genuine paper wallet, with Craig Wright’s driving license next to it (to prove he “owns” that wallet), apparently attached to the paper wallet to give it more authenticity and credibility, as they were used in the early days of Bitcoin.

But what does the image show if you know what you are looking at?

Find out in this article, where we make a rundown in historical order of all the currently known occasions and events where Craig Wright, the most well known Satoshi Nakamoto cosplayer due to the mindboggling number of debunks of his false claims and sloppy forgeries, used the 1Feex address in his Bitcoin scam history that started after the death of Dave Kleiman in April 2013.

Let’s start with the inception of the 1Feex address.

March 1, 2011: Bitcoin public address 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF (from now onward: 1Feex to shorten it out) was funded on this day for the first time when a so far unknown hacker dropped exactly 79,956 BTC on it, stolen on that same day from the Mt Gox exchange during the transfer of Mt Gox from the old owner Jed McCaleb to the new owner Mark Karpelès.

Since March 1, 2011, the 1Feex address has almost literally only been collecting dust, as around 400 small to very small transactions — called ‘dust’ in the Bitcoin community — have reached the 1Feex address. These dust transactions amount to a total of 1.21 BTC at the moment of writing, nevertheless.

On the other hand, no transaction has ever left the 1Feex address since its creation day. In addition, no publicly verifiable signing has ever taken place in relationship to the 1Feex address. It almost appears as if the Mt Gox hacker lost the private key of the 1Feex address over ten years ago, doesn’t it?

September 25, 2013: Russian ‘WebMoney exchange’, as they called themselves, WMIRK adds Bitcoin to its digital currency exchange portfolio. Some will probably think, what does this fact have to do with the 1Feex Bitcoin address? Don’t worry, I’ll come back to that later.

The stage is now set for Craig Wright to enter the scene. Craig, who learned about Bitcoin in July 2011 and who bought his first few handfuls of Bitcoin on Mt Gox in April 2013, started to randomly pick public Bitcoin rich list addresses in the second half of 2013 to try to advance his Australian tax fraud in that era.

One of the many Bitcoin addresses that Craig Wright randomly picked from the Bitcoin rich list was: 1Feex.

October 9, 2013: Here is where we find an early example of Craig Wright using one of those public addresses from the Bitcoin rich list, to subsequently claim he owns, and controls, those randomly picked public addresses. That false story of controlling Bitcoin assets would quickly change though, because Craig, under growing pressure of Australian Taxation Office (ATO), who requested he started to provide evidence to these outrageous claims, had to hide the fact that he couldn’t sign any of these public addresses, and at the same time he had to avoid paying tax on ‘his’ Bitcoin assets. So, after many times falsely declaring trusts all over the globe are in play in his business endeavors, in exactly a year from this moment, in October 2014, all Craig’s — imaginary — Bitcoin holdings will end up in a ‘real trust’. October 2014 is where the Tulip Trust myth really lifts off.

Back to October 9, 2013. On this day, Craig Wright sends an email to the ATO in the person of Michael Hardy about “confidential discussions about the main addresses we control as a group”.

The reader will find the 1Feex address at the red arrows throughout this article.

October 11, 2013: Part of an affidavit filed by Craig Wright on November 4, 2013 at New South Wales Supreme Court (the illegal conversion by Craig Wright that took place in this timeframe was recently penalized with a whopping $100 million by a Jury in Miami; my more detailed report about Craig Wright’s conversion was published on Bitcoin Magazine and the Nasdaq website), this Statutory Declaration signed by Stephen D’Emilio and Adrian Fong shows another instance where Craig Wright falsely claimed to own, and to have control over, the 1Feex address.

Also note the 16cou address in this list of five Bitcoin addresses, as I will come back to that later also.

February 2014: Craig Wright contacts Kleiman estate.

Vel Freedman, head of Ira Kleiman’s counsel, described this process in every shocking detail in his Closing Arguments on November 23, 2021 during the recent Kleiman v Wright trial. Here is where Ira Kleiman gets involved with the 1Feex address (and a lot more Faketoshi scam nonsense).

Vel Freedman:

But Dave dies unexpectedly in 2013, and Craig sees an opportunity. As we’ve discussed, Craig takes the partnership’s assets for himself, his access to the Bitcoin because they mined it into a trust. But he needs title to the intellectual property, so he can sell it. So he files sham lawsuits against W&K to steal its intellectual property and he forges Dave’s signature on a contract weeks before — that is dated weeks before Dave dies, which says that Dave gives Craig 570,000, half of the 1.1 million Bitcoin — to Craig, gives Craig all of W&K’s shares and all of W&K’s intellectual property, all in exchange for a minority stake in a company that doesn’t even exist yet and a company that amounted to nothing called Coin-Exch. Of course, Dave isn’t around to dispute this outrageous contract. So Craig just forges Dave’s signature on it. But Craig’s greedy. He then takes all the IP he stole from W&K and he applies to the Australian Taxation Office for tens of millions of dollars in tax rebates. Which, as you might expect, results in a tax audit. The ATO doesn’t want to cut the $10 million check without proof. And so they start digging. It seems that, like the IRS, the evidence shows that the ATO was dogged. They examined everything. And when they start doing that, Craig is forced to start revealing the truth about his partnership with Dave to defend himself from the Australian authorities. To be sure, he’s not entirely truthful with the ATO either. And he forges documents with them too. For example, he lies to them about supercomputers. And he gets himself in trouble in Australia as well. Eventually, the Australian Taxation Office finds that he forged documents and that he lied to them. When his Australian lawyers, that never tell a lie, find out that he submitted forged documents to the Australian Taxation Office, they fire him too. Think about that for a minute. His own lawyers fire him for forging documents. And that’s why you’ve seen documents in this case from the Australian Taxation Office.


As with many stories, it’s Craig’s greed that results in his downfall. He had almost gotten away with it. But in September 2013, he applies for $10 million tax refunds from the Australian government based on the intellectual property he had stolen. The Australian government quickly audits Craig’s companies — Ms. Vela, if you could jump ahead with me — quickly audits Craig’s companies. And then after auditing his companies, in February of 2014, they begin asking questions about W&K. Can you guys jump ahead for me, please. I’m on Page 40. Craig finally reaches out — do we have a technological issue? It was then, right after W&K — right after the ATO reaches out about W&K, five days later, all of a sudden Craig Wright reaches out. Make no mistake. This is not a good man doing a good deed. This is a desperate man attempting to protect the fruits of his theft and protect himself from the Australian Taxation Office breathing down his neck. He needed the Kleimans to help him convince the Australian government that his actions against W&K were proper. So he emails Ira Kleiman and he promises them fool’s gold.

March 2, 2014: Craig Wright creates an email forgery where Dave Kleiman (who was not among the living anymore since about 10 months) talks about a lot of Bitcoin addresses. Almost casually, paper wallets are also mentioned, for the 1Feex address and other Bitcoin addresses.

Craig then backdates the email forgery to October 31, 2012, and sends it to John Chesher of the ATO (with his wife Ramona Watts on the CC) on March 10, 2014. This email forgery is then only eight days old.

How do we know this is a forgery created on March 2, 2014? From an expert report by Dr Edman, the forensic expert in the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit, acting on behalf of Ira Kleiman. Again that pesky date stamp in the PGP signature, isn’t it Craig?

By the way, make no mistake about who is creating all the forgeries that pop up in Craig Wright’s fraudulent Bitcoin career since the second half of 2013. Although Craig wants you to believe he is continuously being hacked over the years, with ever-changing narratives about who these supposed hackers might be and what their — insert random conspiracy theory — motives are, the hard fact is; Craig Wright is the only person, on each and every occasion, with means, motives, incentives and opportunity to create all the forgeries. Hence we find Magistrate Judge Reinhart ruling “Dr Wright willfully created the fraudulent documents.” during the discovery phase in the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit.

For those who just can’t get enough of how Craig’s forgeries are unraveled by forensic experts like Dr Edman in the Kleiman case, with examples of how Craig is sending emails TO HIMSELF to then alter them in the text and metadata to make it look like someone else, in many cases Dave Kleiman, send the email, should read this Affidavit of Dr Edman.

And another example of how Craig Wright had the means to create Bitmessage emails on Dave Kleiman’s behalf is shown elsewhere in the Kleiman v Wright court docket on the CourtListener website.

Read it, and weep, how sloppy forger Craig Wright “perhaps unintentionally” produced a keys.dat file in the Kleiman case.

Around March 2014: Craig Wright forges a Deed of Loan for 650,000 Bitcoin.

From the Kleiman v Wright case we have learned more about this Deed of Loan, that Ira Kleiman received from the ATO, as we find the following quote in the Complaint material filed in the case:

Further, a 2012 contract provided to Ira by the ATO lists Bitcoin wallets containing over 650,000 bitcoins (the “2012 Deed of Loan”). Next to the list of wallets and total bitcoin held, there is a handwritten annotation stating: “as agreed, all wallets to be held in UK in trust until all regulatory issues solved and Group Company formed with Dave K and CSW.” (Ex. 15 at 9). This annotation is in Craig’s handwriting.

Backdated to October 23, 2012 but forged around March 2014, this Deed of Loan contains several inconsistencies by which we can determine that this is undoubtedly another Craig Wright forgery, in which the 1Feex address is mentioned. Let’s have a closer look at this beauty.

The Deed of Loan exposes itself as a backdated forgery immediately on the first page. The party mentioned as “mortgagee”, Design By Human Ltd (0828988) UK, was an empty shelf company that Craig Wright obtained on January 3, 2014 from CFS (who had renamed Design By Human Ltd to Moving Forward In Business Ltd on October 15, 2013), after which Craig Wright renamed Moving Forward In Business Ltd to C01N Ltd on January 7, 2014. In the following months, Craig started to file all kinds of backdated nonsense in the UK to make it appear as if this Design By Human Ltd company had always belonged to him.

Or, belonged to Dave Kleiman?

Because in fact, in front of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) Craig Wright made it appear as if Dave Kleiman had obtained the Design By Human company around October 2012, as can be seen in this 2014 forgery, a chat-between-Dave-and-Craig-that-never-happened-in-real-life.

For further context, this Deed of Loan forgery was created during, and meant to advance, Craig Wright’s Australian tax fraud era (2013–2015) where he was requested, under growing scrutiny of the ATO Refund Integrity department, where all the Bitcoin came from that Craig claimed to ‘own’, or otherwise have access to, directly or indirectly.

The ATO was, not unsurprisingly, not amused to learn about the next Craig Wright forgery. In one of their Decision reports from Craig’s tax fraud era (learn more about this era in the Faketoshi, The Early Years series written with CryptoDevil), we find the following quotes about this Deed of Loan forgery. For example, we learn that on March 17, 2014 this Deed of Loan was already known to the ATO (and that’s why I’m dating it around this period):

In April 2014, the ATO finds that the Bitcoin addresses mentioned in the Deed of Loan are used for “the MJF transactions”, which is about the Mark Ferrier/MJF Mining Potemkin Village that Craig Wright has raised as part of his Australian tax fraud. More about that in the Faketoshi, The Early Years series. Also, it appears that Craig Wright initially provided an unsigned version of the Deed of Loan which was unacceptable to the ATO.

A bit further down this ATO report we find some more information about the findings of the ATO around this Deed of Loan.

  • An Uyen Nguyen oopsie, quickly ‘repaired’ by Craig Wright.
  • The ‘Seychelles trust’ (which is the still to be raised Tulip Trust scam) existence is being questioned, and for good reasons as we know now.
  • And didn’t we hear the excuse “the terms of the trust do not allow you access to any information before 2015” before, but with ever changing years?


The final nail in the coffin comes more to the end of the ATO report. No Seychelles Trust, no 650,000 Bitcoin ever existed in this trust. So the Deed of Loan was based on… nothing but false information and backdated forgeries.

And to avoid any misunderstanding about how Craig Wright’s fraudulent tax return scheme worked, the ATO summarized the set up as follows:

132. Subsection 165–10(2) of the GST Act defines a ‘scheme’ broadly to include any arrangement, agreement, course of action or course of conduct. In your case we consider there was a scheme which involved you acquiring software from MJF and W&K in order for it to be on supplied to your related entities so as to generate GST refunds in Coin-Exch, Hotwire and Cloudcroft. You had initially planned to use bitcoin to fund these transactions in such a way that you would never lose control or access to those bitcoins.

133. However, on receipt of the private binding ruling advising you that the supply of bitcoin in consideration for an acquisition would be a taxable supply, you altered the scheme to insert the Seychelles trust to which you transferred the bitcoin.

134. Once possessed of the bitcoin, the trustee then entered into a loan agreement with you enabling you to draw down on the loan in bitcoin. You assigned your right to draw down on the loan to your related entities, who in turn assigned the rights to pay for software and IP, the assignments not being taxable supplies. Consequently, your related entities made creditable acquisitions of software and IP but had negative net amounts because there was no corresponding GST liability arising from their provision of consideration.

135. On this scheme (which is particularised further below), the avoiders are Craig Wright, Coin-Exch, Cloudcroft and DeMorgan.

136. The scheme that generated the GST benefits for the avoiders specified below involved 8 steps.

a. Step 1: You caused a trust to be established in the Seychelles

b. Step 2: You acquired software from MJF at a purported cost of $38,461,471, in order to generate a GST credit with a corresponding GST liability by MJF which would never be paid

c. Step 3: You initiated a court action to confirm legal title to W&K software at an inflated value, being $58,786,649

d. Step 4: You entered into a Deed of Loan with trustee of the Seychelles trust in order to access 650,000 bitcoin

e. Step 5: You assigned the right to call for the bitcoin under the Deed of Loan to your related entities Coin-Exch

f. Step 6: You sold the intellectual property and software above to your family trust (DeMorgan) and Cloudcroft at a price reflecting the purported cost bases.

g. Step 7: DeMorgan licensed the software and IP to entities related to you. The licences were paid for by rights to call for bitcoin provided to those entities by you.

h. Step 8: The related entities lodged BAS and claimed input tax for the acquisition of the licenced software, resulting in significant refunds.

Craig Wright’s explanation of the 650,000 Bitcoin Deed of Loan

Now let’s see what Craig Wright had to say about this Deed of Loan forgery during his deposition in the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit on April 4, 2019. He was not very cooperative to share his knowledge about the Deed of Loan, to say the least.

Q. Dr. Wright, do you recognise Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 which has been just marked and placed before you?
A. I recognise two documents joined together, yes.
Q. What are the two documents that are joined together?
A. You have deed of loan as a front page. Page 1 of 7, 2 of 7, 3 of 7, 4 of 7, 5 of 7, 6 of 7 of a document, and then page 7 of 7 of a separate document. So, potentially two, if not three, documents, put together as one.
Q. Page 7 of 7 belongs to what document?
A. Not this one.
Q. Do you know what document it does belong to?
A. I would need to look at records. I do not know.
Q. Looking at the first six pages, which you say are one document; is that correct?
A. The first six pages, you mean not the first six, but the cover page does not have a thing, and then that starts at page 1. So, page 2, which is on here as page 3 of 10, page 4 of 10, page 5 of 10, page 6 of 10, page 7 of 10, and page 8 of 10 are parts of the same document that is not complete.
Q. Sitting here today you have no idea what page 9 of 10 document is — strike that. Sitting here today you have no idea what page 9 of 10 — strike that again. Sitting here today you have no idea what document page 9 of 10 belongs to; is that correct?
A. That is not what I said.
Q. What document does page 9 of 10 belong to?
A. A different document that is not this one.
Q. Which document?
A. I do not have documents in front of me. I cannot match them.
Q. So, sitting here today you do not know what that document — what that page — what document that page belongs to?
A. I cannot match them, no, and page 10 of 10 is a separate document as well. You will notice no page numbers or anything like that, so that is also out of — so there are possibly four documents constructed into one.
Q. Who has all the originals of these documents?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I do not know.
Q. Do you have the originals of these documents?
A. Unless my lawyers have gone through and found things in boxes, then I do not know.
Q. Does Ms. Nguyen have the originals of this document?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I do not know what Ms. Nguyen has. I have not spoken to Ms. Nguyen in three plus years.
Q. Can you look at page 9 of 10.
A. Yes.
Q. There is a signature at the bottom; is that your signature?
A. Yes.
Q. And there is a signature above that; is that Ms. Nguyen’s signature?
A. I believe so.
Q. The handwriting on the right-hand side of all the Bitcoin wallets listed there, whose handwriting is that?
A. That looks like mine.
Q. Do you recognise what this appendix list of Bitcoin is?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. Answer if you can.
THE WITNESS: I think you are confounding two different things. There is a random note talking about wallets and a set of addresses. Where I talk about wallets, wallets are files, computer files, etcetera, so you have done a typical error that most people do in calling Bitcoin addresses wallets. So, you have taken two completely separate things, because I have this habit of writing wherever the hell I feel like it, usually over documents people complain that I write on, because I write notes whenever I feel like writing notes, and saying that they are related.
Q. So, is it your testimony here today that the note in your handwriting on the right-hand side of this document is completely unrelated to the list of Bitcoin block addresses on the left-hand side of the document?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I cannot say what it is. It is all wallets, and then there is a list of addresses. They are two different things. I have made a note. I would need to look at records to be able to match up what that was. I have left myself a note at some point. I cannot necessarily say what my note was.
Q. Do you have those records that you could look that up?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: My lawyers have all the records I have. If anything is in there that goes to further, then that would be there.
Q. Did you have counsel help you draft this document?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. He has already testified that this appears to be a compilation of multiple documents that were put together in error.
Q. Did counsel help you draft page 9 of the document?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. Answer if you can.
THE WITNESS: There is no page 9 of the document. This is a compilation of multiple documents.
Q. Exhibit. Did counsel help you draft page of the exhibit?
MS. MARKOE: He is referring to page 9 at the top.
THE WITNESS: By “counsel”, do you mean my lawyers?
Q. Yes.
A. Possibly. I had lists of different addresses done by lawyers at different times.
Q. Which lawyers created lists of different addresses?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: I do not know which lawyers produced different lists at different times. I have had more lawyers than birthdays!
Q. Can you list all the lawyers that you have had that helped you draft lists of Bitcoin addresses?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You can answer, to the extent you remember.
THE WITNESS: That would be Clayton Utz. There would be M & K. There would be the split off from M & K that I cannot remember the name of — one of the M & K partners split off and formed his own firm — and I used both those firms. There would be High Secured. There would be — I should remember the name. The most famous law firm in Panama that got into the Panama papers, I used them too.
Q. Do you recall the name?
A. No, I do not. I should do, because it was a big thing of discussion including everyone, and I think I blocked it out of my mind because of that. There were more law firms than I care to remember.
Q. Can you tell me what you meant by your handwritten note: “As agreed. All wallets …” What do you mean “All wallets”?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: “All wallets” means all wallets, as in files, computer files, or other such things, that hold Bitcoin.
Q. And you say “As agreed”. Agreed with who?
A. I would need to look at the rest of the document. I am not going to speculate what a page out of a mysterious document, where this is page 7 of 7 that has been attached incorrectly to a different document, means.
Q. So, sitting here today you do not recall what “As agreed” means; is that correct?
MS. MARKOE: Objection: mischaracterises his testimony.
THE WITNESS: I understand what “As agreed” means.
Q. You do not recall who the agreement was made with?
A. This is a note written on a thing that may or may not have any relationship to the original document, that I have one page of addresses, that I do not memorise all the addresses from, that has been constructed between four other documents and handed to me.
Q. And: “… held in UK in trust …” Are you aware, sitting here today, of moving wallets to be held in a UK trust?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. Answer if you can.
THE WITNESS: No UK trust was ever set up.
Q. Can you go to page 2 of 10 for me at the top.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see where it says the last party, Denariuz Seychelles Trust?
A. Yes.
Q. Who are the trustees of this trust?
A. I do not know.
Q. Who are the beneficiaries of this trust?
A. Another trust.
Q. What is the trust’s name that is a beneficiary?
A. I would need to look at records.
Q. Do you have those records?
A. Not on me.
Q. Have you given those records to your lawyers?
A. I have a box of — well, actually, I had, I do not know how many boxes. There were many, many boxes that they spent many days going through, and if it is in there, it would be there.
Q. And if it is not there?
A. When things get closed down, the requirement is for Australian records to be kept for a number of years afterwards and British records to be kept for a number of years afterwards. The Seychelles records requirement is under a year, and once anything hits a period of one year, and the Seychelles trust is no more, it goes the way of anything that is no longer needed to be held, which generally means the shredder.
Q. The Denariuz Seychelles Trust, does it no longer exist?
A. It no longer exists.
Q. When did it cease to exist?
A. Probably around December 2013.
Q. And the wallet existed, what assets did it hold?
A. Again, I could not answer that.
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
Q. So, sitting here today, you have no idea what assets the Denariuz Seychelles Trust held?
A. Sitting here today, I could not answer what assets the companies I founded hold.
Q. Okay. At the top, “Design by Human Ltd”?
A. Yes.
Q. What is this?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: It is a company name.
Q. Was it a trust?
A. It is a company.
Q. Did it ever change its name?
A. You have already covered that one. Yes,
Design by Human had changed its name.
Q. To? What did it change its name to?
A. Again, I do not remember which one is which. We covered that as well. I do not remember which particular one changed its name to C01N or Denariuz, so I would need the records to check those facts, otherwise I will be saying it changed to C01N when in fact it changed to Denariuz and I will get it wrong, and I do not want to do that.
Q. Dr. Wright, you keep saying you checked the records but then tell me that you do know where the records are. What would you do if you needed to figure this information out?
A. I do not need to figure this information out.
Q. Why not?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: Because we are talking about companies that have been liquidated and no longer need to hold records.
Q. The assets held by the Denariuz Seychelles Trust where are they currently held?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Again, I do not even know where the current assets of my current things that I have founded happen to be right now. So you are asking me when I do not know my current company, and what it holds in four continents, where did this other trust that has now gone years ago, where does it have assets that you cannot even tell me what they are.
Q. Under this trust document, Dr. Wright, you are entitled to borrow 650,000 Bitcoin; is that right?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Which trust document? There is no full document here.
Q. Sorry, I misspoke. I strike that. Under this deed of loan you are entitled to borrow up to 650,000 Bitcoin; is that correct?
A. The partial deed of loan, yes.
Q. Did you in fact borrow 650,000 Bitcoin?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: How does this relate to anything, sorry?
Q. Dr. Wright, please answer the question unless you are instructed otherwise by your counsel.
A. I did not borrow 650,000 Bitcoin.
Q. How much did you borrow?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I do not know how much I actually borrowed.
Q. To take these loans, did you have to communicate with Ms. Nguyen?
A. No.
Q. Who was the one who you spoke to in order to take the loans?
A. I do not remember his last name. He worked for a company called High Secured. His first was Mark.
Q. Was it Mark Ferrier?
A. No. He had nothing to do with anything in Panama, nor did he have anything to do with High Secured.
Q. Can you go to page 7 of 10 for me.
MS. MARKOE: At the top again for the record.
MR. FREEDMAN: Yes, at the top, thank you.
Q. Do you see the reference at the bottom to Permanent Success Limited?
A. Yes.
Q. What was Permanent Success Limited?
A. A company.
Q. Was it related to a trust in any way?
A. I do not know.
Q. Can you let me know what it says at the bottom there, “and all related trusts”; what does that mean?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: It means any related trusts.
Q. Were there trusts related to Permanent Success Limited?
MS. MARKOE: Objection: rule of completeness.
MR. FREEDMAN: You can answer.
THE WITNESS: I do not know. I cannot take part of a document, and part of other things, and incomplete records and then construct everything you expect me to know. As I have stated before, I do not know the structure of BITC or nChain or nChain Holdings or any other company that exists right now, so I cannot actually even tell you what I have now, and yet you are saying, “What happened years ago?”
Q. Do you have any way of contacting Mark from High Secured?
A. He is in a federal penitentiary in the USA.
Q. Which federal penitentiary?
A. I do not know. I did not follow his case.
Q. Is there a way you can determine his last name and let us know what it is later?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: You can do searches on High Secured. There is this thing called Google. You go into this task bar, you type in “High Secured”, and search.
Q. Did you pay back the loans that you took under this deed of loan?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: None of your God damn business. This has nothing to do with anything there. Does it say that it has to be paid back? Does it say what it is? You are asking about the management of a trust that has no relationship to Mr. Kleiman, no relationship to a company Dave Kleiman has worked for, no relationship to anyone who has ever been in the USA as a resident or a citizen at any point in human history, no relationship to anyone who has been in North America from Mexico up in human history, that entire continent. No person who has ever been anything to do with residing or citizenship in that part of the world has had anything at all to do with this trust, assets in this trust, management of this trust, control of this trust, etcetera. And then you want me to talk about incomplete records that have been constructed in bits and chucked together from four different documents as if this is real evidence.
Q. Did you pay back the loans that you took from under this deed of loan, Dr. Wright?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You can answer if you can.
THE WITNESS: I do not have any records in front of me. I do not have the rest of the records for this, so — —
Q. So? Could you finish your response, please.
A. So when you can give me all the financial records of things, I will answer against them.
MS. MARKOE: Objection. Okay, withdrawn. I strike my own.
Q. Do you go [edit: know] where Ms. Nguyen is now, Dr. Wright?
A. Earth.
Q. Do you know where on earth she is?
A. I am assuming land.
Q. Dr. Wright, I would appreciate if you would co-operate with me so we could get this done. Do you know the whereabouts of Ms. Nguyen?
A. I stated earlier I have not had any contact with Ms. Nguyen for over three years. That would generally mean I do not have any knowledge. I can restate in other forms if you want or I can be narky about it.
Q. Does Ms. Nguyen still maintain a trust role in relation to companies that are related to you?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You can answer.
Q. She is no longer a trustee of any trusts related to you?
MS. MARKOE: Objection. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: That is what I just said.
Q. When did she stop becoming a trustee of trusts related to you?
A. 2015.
Q. Did you help Ms. Nguyen disappear?
MS. MARKOE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: You are presuming that she has disappeared. I do not know. You are asking me about someone I have not had contact with. My sister — I have not had contact with my older sister in four years. She has not disappeared. She is a hippy, and I am a hyper capitalist. We get on like oil, water, petrol and a match. But my mother would know so she has not actually disappeared.

Now let’s go to Craig Wright’s testimony on the stand on November 9, 2021 during the Kleiman v Wright jury trial. Where Craig in April 2019 at least still admitted it was his handwriting on the Dead of Loan (and it clearly is, of course), he now even starts backtracking on that fact!

Q. Dr. Wright, did you not have an agreement in place with Dave Kleiman to hold Bitcoin wallets in trust until you could form a group company with them?
A. There was small amounts at one stage that was put in as an agreement, as a pre-incorporation document.
Q. Let’s take a look at your own handwriting, Dr. Wright.
MR. FREEDMAN: Ms. Vela, can you please bring up P048.
Q. Dr. Wright, do you see the title of the document, “Deed of Loan”?
A. I see that.
MR. FREEDMAN: Ms. Vela, can you please bring us to Page 7. Page 6. Let’s go to — try 8 then. Sorry. Page 8–7 at the bottom.
Q. Is that your signature, Dr. Wright?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Is that your handwriting, Dr. Wright?
A. No.
Q. Do you see it mentions Dave K. at the very end? It says: “Wallets” and “Dave K” and it’s got Bitcoin addresses, Bitcoin block addresses on it?
A. Looks like: “Dale.”
MR. FREEDMAN: Your Honor, Plaintiffs offer —
MS. MCGOVERN: Objection, Your Honor. The witness has stated it’s not his handwriting. Foundation. Foundation, Your Honor. Authenticity and foundation.
THE COURT: It goes to the weight. Overruled. It will be admitted into evidence.
(Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 048 received in evidence.)
MR. FREEDMAN: Publish this to the jury.
Q. It says: “Deed of Loan” there, Dr. Wright, correct?
A. That’s what it says.
MR. FREEDMAN: Last, Ms. Vela, please bring us to Page 8.
Q. Dr. Wright, I asked you if it was your signature on the bottom of that page, correct?
A. Can you just go through this one by one, please, on this document?
Q. Yes, I will, but first answer this question and then we’ll go through it. Your signature?
A. No.
MS. MCGOVERN: Your Honor, I believe the witness simply wants to look at the document.
THE COURT: Yes, the witness does, but let’s continue.
THE WITNESS: I would like to look at the document.
Q. Not your signature, Dr. Wright?
A. Not my signature.
MR. FREEDMAN: Counsel, I’m going to the deposition of Dr. Wright, April 4th, 2019, Page 299, lines 20 through 24. Ms. Vela, can you not put anything on the screen.
MS. MCGOVERN: One second, Your Honor, please.
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Pause in proceedings.)
MS. MCGOVERN: Lines 20 to 24?
MR. FREEDMAN: 20 to 24.
MS. MCGOVERN: Page 298? What is it?
MS. MCGOVERN: No objection, Your Honor.
MR. FREEDMAN: Ms. Vela, can you please play clip number 6 about the signature.
(Video played.)
MR. FREEDMAN: Ms. Vela, can you please put back up Exhibit P48. Can you bring us back to Page 8.
Q. Dr. Wright, is that your handwriting on the side? I believe you just testified: “No.”
A. No. At the time when I first looked at this document, I didn’t look at it properly. I was angry. You got me angry and I didn’t examine the document correctly. I will say now that no.
Q. So are you admitting that you previously testified it was your handwriting?
A. I didn’t look at the document properly, and I should have noted a number of irregularities with this document. I didn’t. I’m sorry that I was angry at the time and I didn’t look at the document properly. I admit that.
MR. FREEDMAN: Your Honor, it’s a party deposition. We would like to play Dr. Wright’s — Ms. Vela, can you please play clip 7.
(Video played.)
Q. Dr. Wright, let’s read what you testified was your handwritten note on the side. It says: “As agreed. All wallets to be held in UK in trust until all regulatory issues solved and group company formed with Dave K. and CSW.” Do you see that?
A. That was not what I said.
Q. CSW is your initials, Craig Steven Wright?
A. No. And as I said, that looks like my handwriting. It’s similar, but it’s different.
Q. I’m sorry. CSW is not your initials?
A. It is not my initials.
Q. What are your initials, Dr. Wright?
A. If you’re talking about initialing something or — there are two different ways of saying that. If you’re saying did I initial this and those are my initials, then the answer is no. Are my initials technically CSW, then that is yes.
Q. So your initials are CSW, correct?
A. My initials are CSW.
MR. FREEDMAN: Your Honor, I’m about to start another module. I’m happy to keep going, but if the Court wants to take a break now.
THE COURT: This is a good time to stop. So it is obviously 12:55, Ladies and Gentlemen. Let’s go ahead and take a one-hour recess for lunch. Have a pleasant lunch.

June 18, 2015: The 1Feex address is used by Craig in an escrow transaction requested by Calvin Ayre.

Now that scamming the ATO with the 1Feex address had basically failed, one would think Craig Wright will give up using this address that wasn’t, isn’t and never will be his property.

But no. Craig has only warmed up, and will now defraud Calvin Ayre during the June 2015 bailout with the 1Feex address.

As can be read above, for this escrow transaction “so we can get this moving” (meaning, Calvin Ayre will make the funds available for Craig’s bailout), a paper wallet for the 1Feex address is used by Craig Wright. This paper wallet, however, is provably a forgery that pretends to represent some $20,000,000, which is 80,000 Bitcoin multiplied by $250 which was the price of Bitcoin by the end of the month of June in 2015.

The most comprehensive information about this paper wallet forgery is provided by WizSec Bitcoin Research, who wrote a tweetstorm with a complete takedown of this fake 1Feex paper wallet.

A brief history of Craig Wright’s false claims to own the @1FeexV6 Bitcoin address containing 80k BTC (one of many addresses he’s claimed to own even though they belong to other people), over which he’s launched a spurious lawsuit to harass Bitcoin developers:

Wright claims he purchased these bitcoins in 2011 via transaction from WMIRK, a small Russian money exchanger that didn’t even deal in Bitcoin until 2013, and even then only in tiny amounts. As proof of his claim, Wright has a purchase order he says his ex-wife typed up for him.

In reality, the @1FeexV6 address is from one of the earliest @MtGox hacks, which has been well known and documented since long before Wright’s lawsuit.

An email from “Dave” dated 2012 says he created a paper wallet of @1FeexV6 along with several other Bitcoin rich list addresses. The email was debunked in the Kleiman case as being a forgery created in 2014, well after Dave Kleiman’s death.

Following up on this claim, Wright was showing around the following printed paper wallet circa mid-2015, seemingly in order to convince potential bailout investor Calvin Ayre that Wright’s claimed Bitcoin holdings were real.

Knowing Wright, “validating” this paper wallet would just involve scanning the public key and verifying that yep it has 80k BTC on it! (which you can obviously do with *any* address) Unsurprisingly, the paper wallet is a lazy forgery, no doubt hastily thrown together for Calvin.

It’s just a standard paper wallet generated with, which Wright has then altered to look like it contains the @1FeexV6 address instead. For reference, this is how a real paper wallet for the @1FeexV6 address from this time period should have looked.

First, note the address text in Wright’s version. The font is wrong, it’s missing an embossing effect, and the text is misaligned. It’s just been sloppily replaced.

Second, note how the QR code is different. While Wright’s code also contains the @1FeexV6 address, the real wallet generator uses high-redundancy codes, whereas Wright’s looks like a basic low-redundancy code pasted in from It’s not even aligned properly.

Third, the background pattern is wrong. In 2015, generated unique background patterns depending on the actual address contained. Wright’s wallet *does* contain a unique pattern, but it’s for some other address, not @1FeexV6 .

Also worth noting that this unique background feature was only implemented in mid-2014, placing strict bounds on when the forgery could have been created.

So Wright is suing people because he claims his private keys got hacked, despite previously telling his own funders that the key was in unhackable storage. Will Wright disavow this paper wallet and admit to defrauding Calvin, or insist that it’s real and torpedo his own lawsuit?

All quotes and images so far taken from the WizSec Bitcoin Research tweetstorm.

This paper wallet forgery has also been discussed in detail in a special podcast episode of “Dr Bitcoin — The Man Who Wasn’t Satoshi Nakamoto”.

March 21, 2019: Ira Kleiman, bamboozled for many years by Craig Wright, believes that “any cryptocurrency held in the following addresses (or any bitcoin transferred out of these wallets)” belongs at least in part to him. And here we go, there’s the 1Feex address again in a filing in the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit.

However, the Jury in the Kleiman v Wright case found “no positive connection” between Dave Kleiman and Bitcoin, we can read in Carolina Bolado’s article “No Proof Bitcoin ‘Inventor’ Owed Friend, Juror Tells Law360” published December 23, 2021.

May 16, 2019: Bitcoin public address 16cou gets a signing. And within two days, we will learn why this is highly relevant. The signed message is:

Address 16cou7Ht6WjTzuFyDBnht9hmvXytg6XdVT does not belong to Satoshi or to Craig Wright. Craig is a liar and a fraud.

So the reader might think, what does that have to do with the 1Feex address?


May 18, 2019: As an immediate result of the signing two days earlier, Craig Wright urgently creates a new forgery of the Statutory Declaration that we saw earlier under October 11, 2013. The reader might remember that this Declaration contains both the 16cou and the 1Feex address. We notice on this new forgery though, that the 1Feex address, and all other addresses, have suddenly disappeared on this 2013 Declaration. We can only guess at this moment, but it appears that the signing of the 16cou address made this whole Declaration moot, Craig must have thought.

At all times, Craig obviously found it necessary to come up with a complete new set of public Bitcoin addresses on this Declaration forgery. He then takes a snapshot of his latest homework, and posts the image in his Slack room, where Twitter user Marianne Jett picks it up, and posts the image on Twitter, stating:

See how REAL doc from Craig Wright w/ ink signature (not scan) on Bitcoin addresses Stephen D’Emilio had of CSW’s HTC phone doesn’t match hacked/leaked doc from Exhibit 4 pg 38. It’s why we need court & can’t trust hacked docs.

So how do we know this version of the Statutory Declaration is a Craig Wright forgery? Because the Declaration version shown at October 2013, with the 1Feex and 16cou addresses, is the version filed at the New South Wales Supreme Court in November 2013. Craig Wright never challenged it as a forgery over the course of the Kleiman v Wright lawsuit, not before creating this new Declaration forgery, not after creating this new Declaration forgery.

This new Declaration forgery was only created by Craig Wright as a desperate response to the signing two days earlier, to entertain his dedicated followers with the latest distraction of the, for them painful, truth: Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto, but just a cosplaying con man.

February 5, 2020: Craig claims that on this day the private key to 1Feex (and another address) is stolen by hackers, according his “FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT OF DR CRAIG STEVEN WRIGHT”. This witness statement is from the non-public Pineapple Hack lawsuit of Craig Wright against several Bitcoin developers, but as it happened, a filing in the Kleiman v Wright court docket gives us the opportunity to obtain this witness statement from another lawsuit anyway.

June 12, 2020: Blockstream receives letter from Craig’s counsel ONTIER, mentioning the 1Feex address. Letter is immediately posted on Twitter by Samson Mow, who states “Idiotic letter that #Faketoshi’s lawyers are sending around.

Immediately followed by a highly anticipated tweet from Riccardo Spagni (well known under his alias “fluffypony” from the Monero cryptocurrency project) where he posts images of the lawsuit where the Mt Gox hack, leading to 80,000 Bitcoin ending up on the 1Feex address:

Just so we’re clear, Craig Wright has just openly admitted (via his lawyers) to be the guy that stole 80k BTC from Mtgox. The screenshots below show the court documents indicating the “1Feex” address is where the stolen Mtgox funds were sent. What do you have to say, @CalvinAyre ?

November 4, 2020: An individual called Chadwick Austin claims ownership of the 1Feex address in an email to court Florida. The email is available on the Kleiman v Wright court docket on the CourtListener website.

There are several people like Mr Austin, who claim to own the 1Feex address. He’s only taken as an example that, despite it being well known that the 1Feex address contains the Bitcoin stolen from Mt Gox, there are more scammers around like Craig Wright.

February 24, 2021: Craig Wright announces his plans, according “Craig Wright Plans to Take Legal Action Against BTC Developers, Hopes to Recover Over $3B in ‘Stolen Bitcoin’

”, to try recover access to the Bitcoin on the 1Feex address after the February 5, 2020 Pineapple Hack.

Quote from the article, penned down by, there he is again, Riccardo Spagni:

Finally, we have confirmation, via his lawyers, that Craig Wright is the Mt Gox hacker (see his claim of ownership on the 1Feex address). I’d imagine those affected by the Mt Gox hack will want to pursue Craig Wright for his theft of their BTC.

And how right Riccardo was. Meet Mr Danny Brewster, a Bitcoin OG (Original Gangster, around in the Bitcoin space since the early days) who made his counsel Anderson Kill P.C. send a letter to Craig Wright.

April 29, 2021: The aforementioned witness statement by Craig Wright, written on April 29, 2021, and quoted on February 5, 2020 already, continues with:

The 1Feex was originally purchased in February 2011. The purchase was funded by Liberty Reserve Dollars (a form of digital currency used at the time. which I had received for my work for online casinos), through an online Russian exchange, WMIRK. I approached the exchange and asked them how much Bitcoin I could buy with my Liberty Reserve Dollars (which I had been accumulating since 2005 and the exact amount of which I cannot recall), which is how the quantity was arrived at. I do not know from whom the exchange purchased the Bitcoin or what its procedures were for doing so. However, the Bitcoin was delivered on 1 March 2011. as the Blockchain record shows.

And here’s where the September 25, 2013 announcement of WMIRK, where they declared to start with Bitcoin trading, should come to mind…

One of the reasons for my decision to buy the Bitcoin that was transferred to 1Feex and 12ib7 was because I had significant holdings of Liberty Reserve Dollars (as I have described above), which could only be spent in a limited number of places. Whilst Liberty Reserve Dollars may theoretically have been pegged to the US$, they were only as valuable as what they can be exchanged for. As far as I recall, I instructed the exchange (WMIRK) by telephone to buy the Bitcoin using my Liberty Reserve Dollars, but, having done so, I left the rest of the transaction to Lynn. As Thave explained, the Bitcoin that was transferred to the Addresses was purchased and held on trust. It now belongs to TTL subject to the terms of a trust known as the Tulip Trust.

I am aware that there have been rumours and speculation that TTL does not own the 1Feex Address and some individuals have even asserted that they own the 1Feex Address. In that regard:

a. It is alleged that the 1Feex coins were stolen in 2011 from a Japanese digital asset exchange called Mt Gox and even that I was responsible for such theft. This is not true. As I have explained, the 1Feex coins were purchased from a third party in exchange for Liberty Reserve dollars in late February 2011, and transferred into the 1Feex Address on 1 March 2011.!’ The well-publicised hack of Mt Gox took place later in June 2011. I had nothing to do with the hack or any other alleged earlier hacks. Mt Gox has been in liquidation since 2014 and neither the liquidator nor the Japanese police have contacted me regarding the coins in the 1Feex address despite the fact that TTL’s ownership of the 1Feex Address has been public knowledge since 2018. I also made a public statement [on CoinGeek] on this matter on 16 June 2020 where I referred to all the above matters.

b. On 4 November 2020, I became aware that an individual from the USA by the name of Chadwick Austin wrote to U.S. District Judge Bloom (who is hearing the Florida Proceedings) to assert that he was the rightful owner of the 1Feex address. However, he has not pursued his claim and my solicitors have responded to it in detail.

c. Furthermore, as Mr Cain has described, my solicitors receive emails from time to time asserting claims to ownership by third parties but none appear credible (some seem nonsensical) and none have provided any evidence. I have nothing to add to Mr Cain’s evidence in that respect.

The purchase of the Bitcoin is evidenced by a contemporaneous purchase order (the “Purchase Order”), that was prepared by my then wife, Lynn (Wright).

And so far for Craig’s witness statement from the Pineapple Hack case. One can wonder how this case will end for Craig Wright when it comes to his claims on the 1Feex address, knowing that he produced several forgeries and conflicting statements with this Bitcoin address …

About Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!