Recent testimony from Craig Wright’s ex-wife suggests he misled the court on the nature of the Tulip Trust, an entity key to the ongoing Kleiman dispute, lawyers for the plaintiff claim.
- In a motion last month, Lynn Wright, the ex-wife of Craig Wright, claimed she had previously owned one-third of her former husband's firm, W&K Info Defense Research.
- Ms. Wright claims her transferable interest in W&K moved into one of Wright's other companies in 2012, Craig Wright R&D, which ultimately changed its name to "Tulip Trust," and that she only regained ownership interest again in July 2020.
- The Tulip Trust is an entity claimed to hold the million bitcoin (around $12.6 billion at press time) at the heart of the dispute.
- Disputing the filing's validity Tuesday, lawyers for the estate of David Kleiman, Craig Wright's late business partner, said Ms. Wright's testimony means Craig Wright's previous assertions that the Tulip Trust was a blind trust – an entity run independently of its beneficiaries – was not true.
- "[T]he infamous “Tulip Trust” is now apparently just a name change of a company affiliated with Dr. Wright, it is not a “blind trust” as previously alleged," Kleiman's lawyers said.
- Kleiman's legal team asserts the inconsistencies in Ms. Wright's submission come from it apparently being intended to "defraud" both them and the court.
- They also claim there is no proof Ms. Wright owned, relinquished or regained interest again in W&K.
- Ms. Wright's motion asserted Ira Kleiman was not authorized to take his dead brother's position at W&K, thereby, she claims, invalidating the entire case.
- Although Ms. Wright split from her husband in 2010, part of the divorce settlement, according to the motion, gave her half of the company; she also asserts the "W" in W&K refers to her, not her husband.
- Tuesday's filing is part of an opposition to Craig Wright's push for a motion of summary judgment – a judgment without a full trial.
- The Kleiman estate is suing Wright for half of the bitcoin in the trust, as well as intellectual property.
See the full motion below: