CSW v. Roger Ver failed, Judge: No damage to his reputation

Recently, CW (Craig Wright), who claimed to be the inventor of Bitcoin, has been dismissed by a British court against the defamation lawsuit against Bitcoin Cash (BCH) supporter Roger Ver on the grounds that the lawsuit is “unsatisfactory” and “unreasonable”.

In May of this year, during a brief stay in the UK, CSW issued a legal notice to Ver that Ver described the CSW as a “liar” in a video, which damaged his reputation.


But High Court Judge Matthew Nicklin said there is little evidence that CSW's reputation has suffered so-called damage. He said that CSW failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove "the global reputation he enjoys, especially the extent of reputation damage."

The court made a judgment based on evidence provided by CW's attorney Adam Wolanski.

“There is no other evidence of the claimant’s reputation in the United Kingdom (or elsewhere) and, in particular, there is no evidence at all that the claimant has suffered any actual reputational damage.”

The ruling announced today also described the case as a form of libel tourism. “诽谤 Tourism” refers to a lawsuit filed in a jurisdiction that is friendly to the plaintiff to increase the chances of winning the case. The decision pointed out that since Ver is a Japanese resident and only a short visit to the UK, it is not entirely clear whether the UK is "the most suitable place to file a lawsuit."

For this result, Ver announced his victory, "(CSW) has to pay me 60,000 pounds ($73,000) in legal fees."

The self-proclaimed bitcoin inventor, Nakamoto Satoshi’s CSW, has filed suit against other celebrities in the cryptocurrency that have publicly called him a liar, including podcast host Peter McCormack, Ethereum creator Vitalik Buterin, and cryptocurrency news site Chepicap. At the same time, Florida has a lawsuit alleging that CSW has stolen billions of dollars worth of bitcoin from his late business partner Dave Kleiman.

A CSW spokesperson said in the mail that the Ver case was “dismissed only because of jurisdictional issues and has nothing to do with the content of the lawsuit”.

How important is the jurisdiction?

In another high-profile case, jurisdiction has become a core issue. In this confrontation between the Office of the Attorney General of New York (NYAG) and Tether, NYAG claims that some of Tether's financial activities violate New York State law and may harm investors in the state.

Instead, lawyers who defended the currency issuer Tether — and related cryptocurrency exchange Bitfinex and its parent company iFinex — argued that Bitfinex and Tether did not trade with any New York customers.

NYAG tried to prove that these companies have been operating in New York, so according to New York's unique financial law "Martin Act", NYAG filed an appeal, which is also a precedent for New York.