A lawsuit pending in the New York Supreme Court (the trial level court) presents a novel and consequential legal question in the digital asset space: can long-dormant Bitcoin wallets be treated as “abandoned property” under traditional state law?
The case, ABC Company, XYZ Company, and Noah Doe v. John Does 1–39,069 (Index No. 153119/2026), seeks a declaratory judgment awarding to a private claimant ownership of 39,069 inactive Bitcoin wallets. They collectively hold approximately 3.8 million Bitcoin, valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
The Plaintiffs’ Theory: “Finders Keepers” Meets the Blockchain
The case was originally filed in March 2026. Plaintiffs, led by a pseudonymous individual known as “Noah Doe,” assert that the targeted wallets constitute lost or abandoned property under New York Personal Property Law Article 7-B, a statute traditionally governing found items. Under that framework, a finder who reports lost property, attempts to locate the rightful owner, and receives no response within a statutory period, may ultimately claim title.
Here, Plaintiffs allege that they:
- Identified dormant wallets using a proprietary blockchain analysis algorithm;
- Reported the wallets to the New York Police Department;
- Provided notice to owners, including through on-chain “OP_RETURN” messages embedded in the Bitcoin blockchain; and
- Afforded a 90-day claim period, after which unresponsive wallets were deemed abandoned.
After this process, 39,069 wallets remained unclaimed and are now the subject of the action.
The lawsuit does not allege theft, fraud, or hacking. Instead, it seeks a judicial declaration of ownership—effectively asking the court to extend traditional abandonment doctrine into the realm of self-custodied digital assets. The Amended Complaint may be found here.
The Recent Twist in the Case
On May 29, 2026, a lawyer named Ian Cohen requested permission from the Court to submit an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that Plaintiffs’ theory fundamentally misapplies the lost-property statute to blockchain-based assets. Mr. Cohen states that he has no interest in the matter other than as “an advocate for the principled development of digital asset law.” The court entered an Order on June 5, 2026 staying further proceedings, including efforts to obtain default judgments, until July 14, 2026, at which time it will consider whether to accept the amicus brief.
The case raises numerous novel issues, including those in the proposed amicus brief.
1. Can Inactivity Constitute “Abandonment”?
Plaintiffs’ argument rests on the premise that prolonged inactivity supports an inference of abandonment. But traditional abandonment law typically requires intent to relinquish ownership, not mere nonuse. Dormant wallets may reflect lost private keys, deceased holders, or long-term “buy and hold” investment strategies. Recent events have underscored this point. Several wallets named in the lawsuit moved Bitcoin after years of dormancy, suggesting that at least some assets remain under active control.
In addition, notice from some private actor should not create a duty to speak when that actor has no relationship to the property.
2. Is a Blockchain Address “Property” That Can Be Found?
Article 7-B of the Personal Property Law was enacted when “property” meant tangible items, such as lost jewelry, cash, or other physical objects that can be delivered to authorities.
Applying that framework to Bitcoin raises conceptual difficulties. A wallet address is not a thing that can be physically secured; rather, control depends on cryptographic private keys, which Plaintiffs admit they do not have. In addition, Plaintiffs did not “find” anything as the word is commonly understood, but used an algorithm to scan the Bitcoin blockchain.
3. What Constitutes Adequate Notice in a Pseudonymous System?
Plaintiffs contend that they satisfied notice requirements through on-chain messages, public postings, and a defined claims process. However, the adequacy of such notice is far from clear. It is uncertain whether embedding a message in an OP_RETURN field satisfies due process standards for notifying unknown owners, especially as it relates to early Bitcoin addresses. There is also the issue of a global press release being in English, but many Bitcoin holders are foreign.
4. Can a Court Grant Relief it Cannot Enforce?
Even if Plaintiffs were to prevail, a practical obstacle remains: Bitcoin cannot be transferred without the corresponding private keys. As a result, any judgment would likely be symbolic rather than self-executing—at least absent involvement by regulated intermediaries.
The “Lost Bitcoin” litigation illustrates a broader dynamic confronting courts worldwide: how far can legacy legal doctrines be stretched to fit decentralized technologies? Here, Plaintiffs ask the court to treat blockchain data as discoverable property, inactivity as abandonment, and on-chain signaling as sufficient notice—all within a statutory framework developed long before digital assets existed.
Until Mr. Cohen’s intervention, these issues were on-course to be decided unopposed, and by a judge whose biography does not seem to indicate any specific expereince with digital assets. It will be interesting to see what Justice King does now that there is a challenge to some of the basic tenets of Plaintiffs’ case.
The proposed amicus brief may be found here. For an in-depth analysis of the lawsuit, see: Who Is Noah Doe? Inside an Audacious Lawsuit to Claim Satoshi’s Bitcoin | Galaxy
