The implication is:
1) We accept his sworn statement is true: Craig Steven Wright received and controlled the funds from the first MtGox hack in 2013.
OR:
2) We accept his sworn statement is not true: Craig Steven Wright perjured himself in the Supreme Court of NSW and claimed tax credits on the value of 79956 bitcoins that he did not control or own.
I'd love to hear his explanation.
Common sense tells us it's 2) because he's clearly more of a 'shady used car salesman' than he is a criminal mastermind. The only explanation he can give is that he is a liar/cheat/fraud/criminal/etc.