The pseudonymous person calling themselves “Noah Doe,” along with two Wyoming LLCs, has filed suit in New York Supreme Court seeking a court declaration that they are the legal owners of 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses holding roughly 3.8 million BTC — worth an estimated $293 billion at current prices.
You can also find out more about the following: caseThis application, originally filed on March 11th, 2026, was amended to include the date of May 1st, 2026. (Index no. The 153119/2026 is the first claim in U.S. History to title Bitcoin using a Lost-and-Found Property Statute.
New York Personal Property Law Article 7B is the legal vehicle. statute designed for tangible lost objects — a wallet found on a sidewalk, say, or jewelry left in a cab. A finder can claim legal ownership of an item if they report lost property to police within the specified time period, make reasonable efforts to track down the owner and do not receive a response.
Noah Doe’s complaint claims that Bitcoin addresses inactive are “lost property” In this framework, he must deliver his USB drive of address information to the NYPD 17th Precinct to satisfy the requirement for a deposit. He will then be entitled to title over all 39 069 addresses on three dates: the 26th December 2025, the 31st March 2026, the 14th April 2026.
Cryptocurrency has never been included in the statute. The article 7-B is for objects found by a person and handed to the authorities. The plaintiff did not hold private keys for any of the addresses, and therefore could never have given the coins to police officers or any other owner.
A Bitcoin address, unlike a lost wallet, remains fully accessible to its original owner regardless of whether someone else has identified it — the coins do not move unless the true keyholder signs a transaction.
The Bitcoin lawsuit and its targets
These 39,069 Bitcoin addresses are not just a randomly selected sample.
The following is a list of blockchain research firm Galaxy DigitalResearchers call this the “Patoshi” nonce pattern — an onchain fingerprint widely attributed to Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. These addresses hold a total of 1.096 BTC worth approximately $84.7 billion.
The list also includes an address that holds 79,957 BTC from the Mt. Gox hack — coins that have been actively tracked by investigators for over a decade — and one address that is a Counterparty “burn” Address means that it was not controlled and never spent by anyone. The Mt. The Mt.
In the median, defendant addresses hold 50 BTC worth about $3.86million. The median defendant address holds around 97.25 BTC. This is worth about $7.5 million.
Galaxy’s data on its Onchain shows that 99.9% (or more) of defendant addresses have BTC in excess of $10.
This $10 figure is at the heart of this case. According to an expert who cannot be named, each address is worth under $10. “as is” In the event that the recovery of contents may be uncertain, the content is disposed at the time it was found.
That single valuation places all 39,069 addresses into Section 257(2) of Article 7-B — the statute’s fastest track, which vests title in the finder just one year after the find date, with no multi-year police holding period required.
It is this $10 amount which is at the heart of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs use it to claim that their wallets are eligible for New York’s fastest way to obtain a lost property title even though, on the open market, the coins would be worth much more.
The top bracket of the law, which requires three years’ police hold, would apply if the address values were closer to the market price. This would mean that the one-year short cut on which this complaint is based, wouldn’t be possible.
The complaint’s three title-vesting dates correspond exactly to the three found dates plus one year — a timeline that only works if the sub-$10 valuation holds. No expert is named in any of the documents.
Dusting Campaign in 2025
These addresses didn’t just appear out of nowhere. Galaxy Research identified In an October 2025 blockchain report, all of them but one are mentioned. “dusting” campaign — a practice When tiny amounts of BTC is sent to an address, usually to track wallet activities.
Between June and July 2025, over 39,000 addresses received OP_RETURN messages — a Bitcoin data field used to embed text — claiming the sender had taken constructive possession of the coins.
Galaxy’s analysis revealed that these messages could be the basis for an abandonment lawsuit. The report won The Association of Cryptocurrency Journalists and Researchers has released its Best Crypto Research 2025.
Galaxy’s analysis of May 2026 traced both the dusting campaign in 2025 and the court-ordered service onchain for 2026 to one Bitcoin address. Galaxy refers to this as the “Bankroll” address. This address was used to fund 99.6% (of the dusting operations in 2025) and for the service operation of 2026.
Because the defendants are anonymous Bitcoin addresses, the court authorized alternative service under CPLR § 308(5): each address received a 546-satoshi payment (roughly 4 cents) carrying an OP_RETURN message linking to a website hosting the pleadings. Galaxy confirmed 98 batch transactions across Bitcoin blocks 950,446 to 950,576, reaching all 39,069 addresses between May 21–22, 2026.
It is unclear whether this constitutes a sufficient legal warning. The Onchain Service has precedents in Ethereum instances, in which wallets were account-based. Tokens that are dropped in an address usually appear within wallet software.
Bitcoin operates differently — wallets are built around unspent transaction outputs, and most Bitcoin wallet software does not display OP_RETURN payloads at all. Many wallets treat incoming dust transactions by default as spam.
What a win would — and would not — mean
Crypto-legal observers across the industry agree Even if Noah Doe won the case, he would still not be able to transfer a coin. A court ruling does not allow for transactions to be made on the Bitcoin Network without private keys. Only a cryptographic signature that is valid can move BTC.
Galaxy and other legal commentators note that the practical concerns are different. The court’s declaration can be used as an alternative to a “cloud on title” — a legal document the plaintiffs could present to a regulated exchange or custodian if any of the listed coins appeared at a centralized venue.
It could force the original owner to come forward and provide proof of ownership. Their anonymity may be compromised. The case’s potential importance is due to the leverage that can be gained over intermediaries.
Due to the fact that defendants have pseudonymous e-mail addresses and will not be appearing in court, it is possible for a default technical judgment around June 20, 2026. That would occur approximately 30 days following service. It is likely that a motion for default judgement would follow.
Legal observers point out that a court can hold an hearing prior to issuing a title declaration. They also note that novelty and size of claim tend to attract judicial attention.
“This article is not financial advice.”
“Always do your own research before making any type of investment.”
“ItsDailyCrypto is not responsible for any activities you perform outside ItsDailyCrypto.”
Source: bitcoinmagazine.com
