34,335 BTC Moves Undermine Lost-Wallet Claim in Satoshi Suit

About 34,335 BTC, roughly $2.48 billion at current prices, moved from 52 addresses named in a New York lost-property lawsuit. The on-chain transfers show that funds targeted as abandoned have been spent.

The suit was filed by two anonymous Wyoming limited liability companies using the pseudonym “Noah Doe.” The complaint seeks legal title to 39,069 inactive Bitcoin addresses and listed the claim at $10 to meet jurisdictional requirements. If the plaintiffs obtained title, the addresses would represent roughly 3.799 million BTC.

Attorney Ian Cohen filed an amicus brief arguing New York’s lost-property laws do not apply to self-custodied digital assets and that possession of a private key constitutes control of the coins. On June 4, New York Supreme Court Justice Kathy King granted a hearing and issued a stay on the case, pausing any default judgment.

Blockchain analysis by Galaxy Digital found that 29 of the named addresses moved 12,302 BTC after the lawsuit was served, and that 52 of the targeted addresses have moved about 34,335 BTC since the case was filed. The transfers are recorded on the public ledger and are visible by on-chain inspection.

On June 18, plaintiffs’ attorney David Lin filed a motion asking the court to vacate or narrow the stay, arguing a non-party amicus should not block the case and that the statutory period for defendants to answer should be allowed to expire. Cohen filed a response on June 19 noting the stay was entered by the judge to address the lack of opposing parties.

Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy Digital, warned: “A default judgment against ‘defendants’ could grant legal title to 3.799 million BTC, including coins suspected of belonging to Satoshi.” Thorn added that such a judgment could lead to prolonged litigation and ownership disputes.

The court has paused further steps toward a default ruling while it considers the competing legal arguments. The proceedings will address whether state lost-property statutes can apply to self-custodied crypto and how on-chain spending should affect claims of abandonment.