A New York State Supreme Court lawsuit is testing the limits of digital asset law after a pseudonymous plaintiff sought legal ownership of approximately 3.8 million Bitcoin held across nearly 39,000 allegedly dormant wallets, potentially worth up to $293 billion.
Filed last month by a plaintiff identified only as “Noah Doe,” alongside two unnamed Wyoming-based companies, the case argues that the wallets should be treated as abandoned property under New York law.
Notably, the plaintiffs contended that because the private keys to these wallets are presumed lost and the coins inaccessible, the assets meet the statutory definition of abandonment under Article 7-B of New York’s Personal Property Law.
To satisfy the law’s threshold requirements, the plaintiffs valued each wallet at under $10, despite their combined worth running into the hundreds of billions.
They also claimed to have made extensive efforts to notify potential wallet owners, including public announcements, social media outreach, and blockchain-based messaging.



 Critics, however, have questioned whether such methods satisfy formal service-of-process standards.
On Friday, June 19, Attorney Ian Cohen, known as “Bitcoin Lawyer Guy,” described the approach as “broadcasting into the void” and filed a request to stay the proceedings. He warned that a favorable ruling could spawn an entire industry of opportunistic “Bitcoin finders” targeting inactive wallets.
“With bitcoin, possession of the private key IS ownership…you can’t “find” a wallet you can’t open, and a dormant address isn’t lost property. It’s someone’s savings that simply hasn’t moved,” he argued.
Particularly controversial is the inclusion of wallets linked to Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. These addresses, identified through the so-called “Patoshi pattern” studied extensively by blockchain analysts, represent some of the most symbolically significant holdings in the cryptocurrency world.
The plaintiffs argued that these wallets should be treated uniformly with the others and classified as abandoned due to prolonged inactivity. Critics, however, also dispute this, noting that some wallets named in the lawsuit have shown activity in recent years, undermining the core dormancy argument.
Analysts have also raised concerns that the plaintiffs’ classification methodology may improperly group wallets with distinct and varied transaction histories.
Even if the court ultimately rules in the plaintiffs’ favor, enforcement would face significant practical barriers. Private keys cannot be transferred through judicial orders. A favorable ruling would confer only legal ownership recognition, without granting direct access to the Bitcoin itself.
Such a precedent could nonetheless carry far-reaching implications, particularly in scenarios where previously dormant wallets later move funds through exchanges or custodial platforms, potentially triggering competing ownership claims under the new legal framework.
The identity question surrounding “Noah Doe” has also emerged as a flashpoint. Opposing parties argue that a claim of this magnitude demands full transparency, while the plaintiffs maintain that anonymity is essential for personal safety.
Judge Kathy King permitted the case to proceed under pseudonym status for now, while allowing external legal briefs to challenge key aspects of the filing.
That said, the case is now headed toward a major hearing on July 14, where the court will weigh arguments that could fundamentally reshape how U.S. law defines abandonment, ownership, and the enforceability of rights over dormant digital assets.
