Key Takeaways
- • An anonymous plaintiff filing under the pseudonym "Noah Doe" filed a lawsuit in New York Supreme Court (case No. 153119/2026) on March 11, 2026, amended May 1, 2026, claiming ownership of approximately 3.8 million Bitcoin—roughly 18% of total supply—valued at $293.5 billion at current market prices.
- • The claim targets 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses, including 21,923 wallets matching the "Patoshi pattern" widely attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto (worth an estimated $84.7 billion), and at least one address linked to the Mt. Gox hack, with an average holding of approximately 97 BTC per address.
- • The lawsuit invokes New York Personal Property Law Section 257, an abandoned property statute enacted in 1958, arguing that Bitcoin wallets inactive for five to six years qualify as abandoned property recoverable under state law.
- • Industry experts including Galaxy Research's Alex Thorn and Ripple's David Schwartz have publicly criticized the claim as fundamentally flawed, citing jurisdictional problems given Bitcoin's decentralized, global nature and the inapplicability of 1958 property law to cryptocurrency.
- • The plaintiffs—identified as "Noah Doe" and two Wyoming LLCs (ABC Company and XYZ Company)—reportedly submitted address data to the NYPD between December 2024 and April 2025 in purported compliance with finder procedures.
Summary
An anonymous plaintiff claiming the name "Noah Doe" has filed a novel and contested lawsuit in New York Supreme Court seeking legal ownership of approximately 3.8 million Bitcoin held across 39,069 dormant addresses. The claim, valued at $293.5 billion at current market prices, represents roughly 18% of Bitcoin's entire circulating supply and ranks among the largest property claims ever filed in a U.S. court by monetary value.
The lawsuit, indexed as case No. 153119/2026, was originally filed on March 11, 2026, and subsequently amended on May 1, 2026. The plaintiffs include "Noah Doe" and two Wyoming-registered LLCs identified as ABC Company and XYZ Company. The claim is notably ambitious in scope: it encompasses 21,923 Bitcoin wallets matching the "Patoshi pattern," a sequence of mining patterns widely attributed to Bitcoin's pseudonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto and valued at approximately $84.7 billion, as well as at least one address connected to the Mt. Gox exchange hack. Galaxy Research estimates an average holding of roughly 97 BTC per address across the targeted wallets.
The legal theory rests on New York Personal Property Law Section 257, a statute governing abandoned property enacted in 1958—approximately half a century before Bitcoin's inception in 2009. The plaintiffs argue that Bitcoin wallets inactive for five to six years meet the abandonment threshold established by this framework. According to court documents, the plaintiffs submitted address data to the NYPD between December 2024 and April 2025, ostensibly to comply with finder procedures under New York law.
The claim has drawn significant skepticism from major industry participants. Galaxy Research's Alex Thorn and Ripple's David Schwartz, among other analysts, have publicly criticized the lawsuit as fundamentally flawed. Critics contend that Bitcoin, as a decentralized asset existing on a global network rather than within any single jurisdiction, cannot be subject to state-level abandoned property law. This jurisdictional critique strikes at the core of the plaintiff's legal theory, questioning whether New York courts possess authority over assets that exist outside traditional territorial frameworks.
The lawsuit represents an unconventional test of how legacy property law applies—or does not apply—to digital assets in decentralized networks. Whether the New York court accepts the plaintiff's framing of dormant Bitcoin addresses as "abandoned property" under 1958 legislation remains to be determined, but the claim has already generated considerable debate among institutional and professional market participants regarding regulatory clarity and legal precedent in cryptocurrency asset recovery.
The lawsuit, indexed as case No. 153119/2026, was originally filed on March 11, 2026, and subsequently amended on May 1, 2026. The plaintiffs include "Noah Doe" and two Wyoming-registered LLCs identified as ABC Company and XYZ Company. The claim is notably ambitious in scope: it encompasses 21,923 Bitcoin wallets matching the "Patoshi pattern," a sequence of mining patterns widely attributed to Bitcoin's pseudonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto and valued at approximately $84.7 billion, as well as at least one address connected to the Mt. Gox exchange hack. Galaxy Research estimates an average holding of roughly 97 BTC per address across the targeted wallets.
The legal theory rests on New York Personal Property Law Section 257, a statute governing abandoned property enacted in 1958—approximately half a century before Bitcoin's inception in 2009. The plaintiffs argue that Bitcoin wallets inactive for five to six years meet the abandonment threshold established by this framework. According to court documents, the plaintiffs submitted address data to the NYPD between December 2024 and April 2025, ostensibly to comply with finder procedures under New York law.
The claim has drawn significant skepticism from major industry participants. Galaxy Research's Alex Thorn and Ripple's David Schwartz, among other analysts, have publicly criticized the lawsuit as fundamentally flawed. Critics contend that Bitcoin, as a decentralized asset existing on a global network rather than within any single jurisdiction, cannot be subject to state-level abandoned property law. This jurisdictional critique strikes at the core of the plaintiff's legal theory, questioning whether New York courts possess authority over assets that exist outside traditional territorial frameworks.
The lawsuit represents an unconventional test of how legacy property law applies—or does not apply—to digital assets in decentralized networks. Whether the New York court accepts the plaintiff's framing of dormant Bitcoin addresses as "abandoned property" under 1958 legislation remains to be determined, but the claim has already generated considerable debate among institutional and professional market participants regarding regulatory clarity and legal precedent in cryptocurrency asset recovery.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.