The irony, for me, would be if Craig is ordered to pay an amount based on a fabricated agreement, that he actually created. Funny.
But again, if a financial settlement is reached in favour of Ira, the amounts seem so large ($ or BTC), Craig aint paying, so.....
For the purpose of discussion lets assume that a large judgement is made against Craig: This
in my opinion is likely to be the scenario:
The court is not interested in what he can control or owns now. It is interested in the amount he allegedly stole from Dave.The value of the judgement is likely to be based on the bitcoins Satoshi owned - since Craig claims to be Satoshi
If he is caught lying about assets he owns or owned then he will not be discharged from bankruptcy.
If it is proven that the trusts or companies were funded by fraud or part of the fraud then the trusts and companies will become able to be seized.
If a judgement is made in favor of Ira then Craig will have to hand over control of all the assets and companies that he owns and controls.
It means that company documents and trust documents come under the control of a liquidator.
The irony of a large judgement is that he would have to prove he never owned certain assets to avoid having to pay for owning them. That would trigger other legal issues.
Since some of it may not exist - there is a predicament in itself. How do you prove that something that you claimed existed - doesn't exist.
If he decides later to say he lied and is not Satoshi then it means he perjured himself in court, lied on copyright applications and possibly on patent applications too.
It also could mean that he obtained public speaking fees by deception. It also could mean that he publicly called some very wealthy people liars by threatening to sue them for libel.
It will be substantially different from the ATO situation which affected some of his companies. A judgement in this case will be against him personally but will also affect any funds that may have flowed from him personally to companies or trusts.
Revelations in this case could also trigger further consequences with the ATO.
