The Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI) has filed a motion seeking permission to intervene in a New York lawsuit in which anonymous plaintiffs are attempting to claim ownership of 39,069 allegedly abandoned Bitcoin wallets.
The organization argues that the plaintiff’s claims are both legally and technically flawed and warns that a favorable ruling could undermine the property rights of Bitcoin holders, including those who deliberately hold assets for years without moving them.
🟠 BITCOIN POLICY INSTITUTE INTERVENES IN ‘NOAH DOE’ CASE
big development in ‘noah doe’ “abandoned bitcoin” case in which an anon is seeking to gain legal title over satoshi’s coins.. @bitcoinpolicy just filed to intervene as a defendant fighting to kill the whole thing
👏👏 pic.twitter.com/F5LrBJ8w7S— Alex Thorn (@intangiblecoins) July 11, 2026
Background of the case
A March 2026 New York lawsuit filed by a pseudonymous plaintiff using the name “Noah Doe,” alongside two Wyoming entities to which he assigned rights, seeks control of 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses.
The complaint states these addresses hold roughly 3.7 million BTC, worth about $237 billion at current market prices, and include wallets linked to Satoshi Nakamoto. The plaintiffs argue the wallets should be treated as abandoned property under New York law, allowing them to claim title as finders.
The complaint details that they identified the addresses using a custom algorithm, delivered the list to the New York City Police Department on USB drives, and later broadcasted on-chain OP_RETURN notices to the addresses.
Does dormant Bitcoin equal abandoned Bitcoin?
The plaintiffs say they used a proprietary algorithm to identify dormant, self-custodied Bitcoin addresses that had not moved for years and appeared unresponsive despite Bitcoin’s price appreciation.
After submitting the addresses to New York authorities under the state’s lost-property law, they asked the court to award them legal title to the wallets and the Bitcoin they contain.
In its filing, the BPI argues that the lawsuit is based on mistaken assumptions about both Bitcoin and property laws. The organization says many Bitcoin owners intentionally keep their assets dormant for extended periods, making inactivity an unreliable indicator of abandonment.
The Washington-based nonprofit specializing in Bitcoin research and public policy also argues that wallet addresses are publicly observable and therefore cannot be “found” in a legal sense, while ownership of an address is separate from ownership of the Bitcoin associated with it.
The BPI added that New York’s lost-property laws were designed for physical property, not digital assets, and warned that a victory for the plaintiffs could discourage self-custody by forcing users to periodically move their holdings or rely on custodial services.
Galaxy flags flaws
In a recent report, Alex Thorn, Head of Firmwide Research at Galaxy Digital, said nearly all of the defendant addresses overlapped with the 2025 dusting campaign and with wallets Craig Wright previously asserted ownership of in separate litigation.
Wright, the Australian computer scientist who claimed to be Bitcoin’s creator, was found in contempt of a UK court in late 2024 after continuing to make those claims and pursue Bitcoin-related intellectual-property lawsuits despite a judgment rejecting them. He was given a 12-month prison sentence suspended for two years.
According to Thorn, the lawsuit contains major legal and factual weaknesses, including inaccurate valuation claims, addresses tied to stolen funds and burn wallets, a potentially fictitious process server, and questionable anonymity for the corporate plaintiffs.
Even if successful, the analyst noted the plaintiffs would obtain only a court declaration rather than control of the Bitcoin itself, limiting any practical benefit to potential leverage over exchanges if the coins are ever moved.
