A lawsuit has been filed in New York Supreme Court by an individual using the pseudonym “Noah Doe,” in conjunction with two Wyoming LLCs, asserting ownership of 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses, which collectively hold around 3.8 million BTC, currently valued at approximately $293 billion. This legal action, filed on March 11, 2026, and later amended on May 1, 2026, is anticipated to be the first instance in U.S. history where a claimant seeks title to Bitcoin through a lost-and-found property statute.
The suit leverages New York Personal Property Law Article 7-B, typically reserved for tangible lost objects, such as wallets or jewelry. The statute allows individuals who have found lost property to eventually gain legal title after fulfilling certain requirements, including notifying the police and making reasonable efforts to locate the original owner.
Doe’s lawsuit posits that dormant Bitcoin addresses qualify as “lost property” under this framework. He asserts that his submission of USB drives containing address data to the NYPD’s 17th Precinct meets the necessary requirements for reporting. The case claims that ownership of all 39,069 addresses vested in him on three separate dates: December 26, 2025, March 31, 2026, and April 14, 2026. Notably, however, Article 7-B has never been applied to cryptocurrency, and the claim raises questions regarding its interpretation.
The addresses in question are not arbitrary; blockchain research firm Galaxy Digital revealed that approximately 21,923 of the addresses exhibit a unique “Patoshi” nonce pattern that many associate with Bitcoin’s enigmatic creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. These specific addresses alone contain roughly 1.096 million BTC, worth around $84.7 billion. Furthermore, the defendant list includes an address associated with 79,957 BTC stolen in the infamous 2011 Mt. Gox hack, which has been closely monitored for over a decade, as well as a counterparty “burn” address that is inherently unspendable.
In Galaxy’s analysis, it was found that the median defendant address holds 50 BTC, approximately valued at $3.86 million, while the average holds 97.25 BTC, worth around $7.5 million. Strikingly, 99.9% of these addresses contain Bitcoin valued well over $10. Central to Doe’s argument is a valuation suggesting that each address was worth less than $10 at the time it was ‘found,’ which permits the case to take advantage of a quicker legal route under Article 7-B. This valuation strategy hinges on the premise that the addresses carry uncertain recovery prospects; otherwise, they would fall under a classification requiring a longer process for legal title.
The addresses did not suddenly appear without context; they were predominantly identified in an October 2025 report detailing a blockchain “dusting” campaign, during which tiny amounts of Bitcoin were sent to addresses. The campaign involved over 39,000 addresses that received messages claiming that the sender had taken possession of the coins, an act that Galaxy Digital suggested may have set the stage for the subsequent legal claim.
As the case progresses, it has been noted that the anonymity of the Bitcoin addresses complicates legal procedures. The court authorized alternative service measures, enabling the claim to reach each identified address through minimal Bitcoin transactions containing messages linking to the legal pleadings. This method’s efficacy remains in question, particularly since many wallets may not display such messages and often filter low-value transactions as spam.
Legal analysts widely agree that even if Doe were to prevail in this lawsuit, he would not gain the ability to transfer any Bitcoin, as possession of the private keys is necessary for accessing the funds. A court declaration may, however, serve as a “cloud on title,” potentially impacting transactions on regulated exchanges and compelling original owners to establish their claims, thereby risking their anonymity.
A technical default might be anticipated by late June 2026 if the defendants do not respond to the allegations. Consequently, a motion for a default judgment could follow, while the court retains discretion to decide whether a hearing is warranted before issuing a declaration. Observers have pointed out that the legal framework surrounding this case is unprecedented, and both the scale and novelty of the claims will likely draw rigorous judicial review.
