US Man Sues Two Companies Over Ownership of 39,000+ Dormant Bitcoin Addresses

7 mins mins

A pseudonymous US man has filed a lawsuit in New York Supreme Court seeking ownership of more than 39,000 dormant Bitcoin addresses estimated to hold approximately 3.7 million BTC worth roughly $285 billion, in what could become the first major legal test of whether idle cryptocurrency can be claimed as abandoned property under state law.

The plaintiff, identified only as “Noah Doe,” filed a First Amended Complaint on May 1, 2026, under Index #153119/2026 through Brooklyn-based law firm Lewis & Lin LLC. The suit names two Wyoming-registered LLCs as co-plaintiffs rather than defendants: ABC Company and XYZ Company, to which Noah Doe transferred ownership rights over the wallets.

Estimated Value of Dormant Bitcoin Targeted

~$285B

across 39,069 dormant addresses (~3.7 million BTC)

Source: crypto.news — NY Supreme Court complaint, Index #153119/2026

What the Lawsuit Claims: One Man, Two Companies, 39,069 Bitcoin Addresses

Noah Doe transferred ownership rights in all but 18 of the wallets to ABC Company on December 1, 2025. ABC Company subsequently transferred 17.7% of its holdings to XYZ Company, creating the three-party plaintiff structure. The 901-page court filing runs through the full list of targeted addresses.

The legal basis is New York Personal Property Law Article 7-B, a lost-property finder statute originally designed for physical goods. Noah Doe claims to have discovered a “security vulnerability” in October 2024 that allegedly caused wallet owners to permanently lose the ability to withdraw their Bitcoin, according to the lawsuit complaint. The nature of this vulnerability has not been independently verified or named by any security firm.

The targeted addresses include wallets linked to Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto, specifically the well-known “12c6D” wallet, as well as the “1Feex” address associated with the Mt. Gox exchange hacker. The plaintiff’s algorithm initially identified 42,001 wallets across three batches; 2,932 were removed or claimed before the suit was filed, according to a single source citing the plaintiff’s own court filing.

Before filing suit, the plaintiffs undertook an extensive outreach campaign. OP_RETURN messages were sent to every targeted wallet via the Bitcoin blockchain in late June 2025, accompanied by a global press release distributed to approximately 820 media outlets across 37 countries. A 90-day claim deadline of October 10, 2025 was set. No owner responded.

NYPD’s 17th Precinct issued formal property receipts for USB drives submitted by Noah Doe, adding a procedural layer that mimics the physical lost-property process the statute was designed for.

Why ‘Dormant’ Addresses Create a Legal Gray Area

A Bitcoin address is considered dormant when its unspent transaction outputs show no activity for an extended period, typically years. On the Bitcoin network, ownership is determined solely by possession of a private key, not by any identity document, court order, or central registry.

This creates a fundamental tension with traditional property law. In physical-world finder statutes like Article 7-B, an item is “found” because its owner physically lost track of it. With Bitcoin, inactivity does not necessarily mean abandonment. A wallet holder may be deliberately storing value long-term, may have died without passing on keys, or may simply choose not to transact. The distinction matters because the lawsuit’s entire premise rests on classifying these wallets as abandoned, similar to how BTC funding rate shifts can signal changes in market positioning without indicating participants have left the market.

A structural flaw in the lawsuit’s notification process further complicates the claim. The abandonment notices were sent to Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash (P2PKH) address formats, while many Satoshi-era balances reside in Pay-to-Public-Key (P2PK) script outputs. This means the notified addresses may hold no value, potentially invalidating the abandonment claim for the largest holdings in the suit.

No US court has previously ruled on whether self-custodied, dormant Bitcoin wallets can be classified as legally abandoned property under any state statute. The case does not involve federal regulators such as the SEC, CFTC, or DOJ, and was not filed under any crypto-specific legislation.

Analysts Question Whether a Court Ruling Could Be Enforced

Even if the court rules in the plaintiffs’ favor, enforcement presents an unprecedented challenge. Noveleader, lead research analyst at Castle Labs, stated directly:

“The network has no mechanism to reassign funds without a private key.”

Noveleader, Lead Research Analyst, Castle Labs — via KuCoin News

Bitcoin’s protocol does not recognize court orders. Without the private keys to the targeted wallets, no entity can move the funds. Enforcement would require the coins to first migrate to a regulated custodian or exchange, something that cannot happen without key holder cooperation or a protocol-level change that the decentralized Bitcoin network is unlikely to adopt.

Broader industry data shows approximately 3.5 million BTC worth roughly $271 billion has been dormant for over a decade. This context highlights why the case has drawn attention beyond its immediate parties: a favorable ruling could theoretically open the door for similar claims against any long-inactive wallet, a prospect that challenges the foundational principle that crypto ownership equals key possession.

Precedent and Implications for Bitcoin Property Rights

The case is legally novel. No US court has adjudicated a dispute over Bitcoin address ownership where no defendant holds the keys and no central authority controls the assets. Traditional property disputes involve identifiable parties and enforceable remedies; this case has neither.

A plaintiff win would signal that state lost-property statutes can apply to digital assets held in self-custody, potentially encouraging a wave of similar filings targeting dormant wallets. It could also trigger legislative responses from states seeking to either codify or block such claims, much like how regulatory scrutiny of market-making arrangements has prompted calls for clearer crypto legislation.

A plaintiff loss, meanwhile, would reinforce the existing crypto-native consensus: if you do not have the keys, you do not own the coins, regardless of what a court says. It would also likely discourage future attempts to use finder statutes for digital assets.

The case arrives as Bitcoin trades at $76,775, with the Crypto Fear & Greed Index sitting at 34 (Fear), reflecting broader market uncertainty that extends beyond this lawsuit.

Key Facts at a Glance

Who filed? A pseudonymous US man (“Noah Doe”) alongside two Wyoming LLCs (ABC Company and XYZ Company), represented by Lewis & Lin LLC of Brooklyn.
What is claimed? Declaratory judgment of ownership over 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses holding an estimated 3.7 million BTC.
Legal basis? New York Personal Property Law Article 7-B, a lost-property finder statute.
Where filed? Supreme Court of New York, Index #153119/2026.
What outreach was attempted? Blockchain OP_RETURN messages, global press releases to 820+ outlets, and a 90-day claim deadline (October 10, 2025). No owners responded.
Key challenge? Bitcoin cannot be reassigned without private keys, making any ruling potentially unenforceable on-chain.

What to Watch: Next Steps in the Case

The First Amended Complaint was filed on May 1, 2026. No public response from any party claiming ownership of the targeted addresses has been reported. The court has not yet scheduled oral arguments or issued any preliminary ruling.

A favorable ruling would likely face immediate appeals, given the unprecedented nature of applying a physical-property statute to decentralized digital assets. The lack of identifiable defendants, since the wallet holders are unknown, raises unresolved questions about whether the court even has subject-matter jurisdiction over Bitcoin addresses whose owners cannot be geographically located.

If the New York Supreme Court accepts jurisdiction and rules in the plaintiffs’ favor, the decision could prompt other states to examine how their own property laws apply to dormant digital assets, potentially accelerating a patchwork of state-level crypto property frameworks. For now, the case stands as the most ambitious legal attempt to date to claim ownership of Bitcoin without holding the keys.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency and digital asset markets carry significant risk. Always do your own research before making decisions.