Dave Kleiman before the court: How medical and financial evidence dismantles the claim over Bitcoin

The civil lawsuit between Dave Kleiman and Craig Wright revealed in 2021 compelling evidence as to why it would be virtually impossible for Kleiman to have participated in the creation and innovation of Bitcoin. Defense witnesses presented a detailed picture of his extreme physical limitations, persistent financial crises, and his true formalized business activities, strongly contrasting with the thesis that Kleiman was a co-creator of the world’s most important cryptocurrency.

The lawsuit, filed by Ira Kleiman on behalf of his deceased brother’s estate, alleges that Wright invented Bitcoin with Kleiman’s help and seeks access to assets associated with Satoshi Nakamoto, valued at approximately $66 billion. However, the presentation of evidence demonstrates that Wright should face much more rigorous scrutiny regarding this claim.

A life marked by physical adversities: Medical testimony against Wright’s theory

From September 2010 to March 2013, Dave Kleiman was hospitalized for approximately 850 consecutive days. A motorcycle accident in 1995 had left him paraplegic, a condition that worsened during this period with severe medical complications. Dr. D. Stewart MacIntyre Jr., an infectious disease specialist, testified about Kleiman’s medical records detailing pressure ulcers, bone fragility, infections including MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), and the need for medications such as antibiotics and Valium.

Kleiman’s mobility was extremely limited: paralyzed from the waist down, requiring nurses to turn him every two hours to prevent further injuries. An intravenous line further hampered his movement. Even leaving the hospital required formal medical permission. The only day Kleiman was authorized to leave was to oversee the installation of a mechanical elevator in his bathroom, from which he never returned. He was found dead in April 2013.

Interestingly, during cross-examination, the plaintiffs’ lawyer attempted to suggest that these physical limitations would not have prevented Dave Kleiman from working. He presented assessments showing perfect cognitive scores (30/30 on mental tests) and testimonies that Kleiman was constantly on his laptop in the hospital. Staff documented that he worked on digital forensic analysis, and that this activity helped him cope with his medical issues.

However, subsequent testimonies would significantly complicate this narrative about Kleiman. Kimon Andreou, who worked with Dave Kleiman at the company S-Doc (Securit-e-doc) between 2002 and 2004, testified that Kleiman had “minimal or no programming knowledge.” Andreou visited Kleiman in the hospital during his hospitalization and confirmed that he was undergoing “surgery after surgery after surgery,” a condition incompatible with complex programming work such as creating Bitcoin.

The revealing silence: Financial evidence and the absence of mentions of Bitcoin

Records that emerged during the trial include approximately 200 pages of text messages between Kleiman and Andreou, dated between 2009 and April 2013. These messages depict a picture of severe financial difficulties. In late 2010 and mid-2011, Dave Kleiman told Andreou he was behind on his mortgage and utility payments. He even sent lottery numbers asking Andreou to buy him tickets, acts that suggest financial desperation.

Most importantly: neither in these extensive messages nor in their personal conversations did Dave Kleiman ever mention a business partnership with Craig Wright to mine or invent Bitcoin. When directly asked if Kleiman had told him about “hundreds of millions of dollars in Bitcoin,” Andreou responded negatively.

This is especially relevant given that if Kleiman had truly owned a fortune in Bitcoin from the early days of mining, his financial problems would be inexplicable. Why would someone with access to billions in value not liquidate even a tiny fraction of his holdings to resolve his mortgage crises?

Later, Andreou was confronted with an email he wrote after Kleiman’s death, suggesting: “If all the documents are authentic, then, with the addition of the anecdotal information we have from conversations with Dave, everything points to Dave and Craig actually being behind Bitcoin.” During the interrogation, Andreou acknowledged that his change of opinion was entirely based on “third-party information.” Ultimately, he insisted he never believed that Dave Kleiman had programmed or coded for Bitcoin, nor that he was the key figure behind the project.

Formalized collaborations: The true business record of Dave Kleiman

Carter Conrad was the next witness to testify, providing a revealing contrast to the alleged association with Wright. Conrad knew Dave Kleiman through specialized circles of digital forensic analysis. They met in person at a conference in Miami, where Conrad initially assisted Kleiman with physical tasks: disconnecting and moving computers to facilitate Dave’s forensic analysis work.

When Kleiman entered the hospital, Conrad took on more responsibilities and suggested formalizing their collaboration. A third person, Patrick Paige, also joined the project. Unlike the vagueness surrounding any alleged partnership between Kleiman and Wright, this collaboration was meticulously documented.

The defense presented solid evidence of Computer Forensics LLC: income statements, operating agreements, and state records. The three men — Conrad, Kleiman, and Paige — shared ownership equally. Dave Kleiman even hired an old friend accountant to handle the company’s financial matters, sending him details about projected income and benefit distribution plans. This is the kind of commercial formality typically characteristic of established legal companies.

The contrast is striking: while Computer Forensics LLC has complete documentation, state records, and formal agreements, the alleged partnership between Kleiman and Wright to create Bitcoin lacks similar documentary evidence. When the plaintiffs’ lawyer asked Conrad if Dave knew how to write computer scripts, Conrad recalled seeing him use them at a conference but was vague on details, supporting the profile of a digital forensic analysis professional, not a cryptographic developer.

The testimony of accountant David Kuharcik reinforced this narrative. Kuharcik stated that he had always prepared Kleiman’s federal tax returns and that, although Kleiman meticulously provided all necessary information to complete accurate and thorough filings, he never included anything related to a legal partnership or income derived from Bitcoin.

The cumulative weight of absence

The case presented by the defense relies less on what was demonstrated and more on what is absent from the record: no mention of Bitcoin in private communications, no formal documents about a partnership with Wright, no evident access to a fortune in cryptocurrencies, no evidence of skills specifically required for advanced cryptography.

Dave Kleiman left a clear documentary trail of his life: hospitalizations, unpaid medical bills, money requests from friends via lottery, transparent tax records, and a formally established company with other partners where he documented his activities. What he did not leave was any evidence of being Satoshi or a co-creator of Bitcoin. In a world where Wright claims to have invented Bitcoin, precisely where the greatest amount of documented records and collaborations should exist, it turns out that Dave Kleiman simply does not appear.