Galaxy

Bitcoin

motion

Read

Change

<p><strong>A pseudonymous defendant known as John Doe 33 filed a motion to dismiss a New York lawsuit that seeks ownership of 39,069 dormant Bitcoin wallets, arguing that public blockchain addresses are not legal entities that can be sued or claimed as lost property.</strong></p>
<p>The notice of appearance and motion to dismiss were filed on July 2, 2026, according to <a href="https://www.tradingview.com/news/cointelegraph%3A2df39570c094b%3A0-defendant-files-to-dismiss-new-york-lawsuit-seeking-ownership-of-39-069-bitcoin-wallets/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">a Cointelegraph report</a>. The filing marks the first time any of the thousands of named defendants has responded to the suit. For related coverage, see <a href="https://www.trustscrypto.com/strategy-sell-3-billion-bitcoin-dividend-bill/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">Could Strategy Sell $3 Billion in Bitcoin to Pay a Dividend Bill?</a>.</p>
<h2 id="what-john-doe-33-asked-the-court-to-do">What John Doe 33 Asked the Court to Do</h2>
<p>The motion advances two distinct legal arguments. The first challenges the court's jurisdiction over Bitcoin addresses themselves. The second attacks the plaintiffs' theory that dormant wallets qualify as lost property under New York law. For related coverage, see <a href="https://www.trustscrypto.com/sec-sues-vbit-says-some-bitcoin-mining-hosting-are-securities/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">SEC Sues VBit, Says Some Bitcoin Mining Hosting Are Securities</a>.</p>
<h3 id="the-jurisdiction-argument">The Jurisdiction Argument</h3>
<p>John Doe 33's filing argues that Bitcoin addresses are data strings, not persons or legal entities. Because a string of alphanumeric characters cannot be served with process or compelled to appear, the motion contends the court lacks personal jurisdiction over any of the 39,069 named "defendants."</p>
<figure>
 <div>
  <div>
   Wallets Named in the Lawsuit
  </div>
  <div>
   39,069
  </div>
  <figcaption>
   The reported dismissal motion responds to a lawsuit seeking ownership over 39,069 long-dormant Bitcoin wallets.
  </figcaption>
 </div>
</figure>
<h3 id="the-lost-property-argument">The Lost-Property Argument</h3>
<p>The motion also argues that a public Bitcoin address cannot be "found" under New York's lost-property framework because it has always been publicly visible on the blockchain. Unlike a physical object hidden or misplaced, every address and its balance have been observable by anyone since the moment they were created.</p>
<p>This distinction matters because New York's abandoned-property statute requires that property be lost or mislaid before a finder can assert a claim. If the addresses were never hidden, the legal foundation for treating them as found property collapses.</p>
<h2 id="how-the-39-069-wallet-case-reached-this-stage">How the 39,069-Wallet Case Reached This Stage</h2>
<h3 id="case-caption-and-court">Case Caption and Court</h3>
<p>The case is captioned ABC Company et al v. John Does 1-39069, Index No. 153119/2026, and is pending in New York Supreme Court before Judge Kathy J. King. The plaintiffs, operating under pseudonyms, filed the original complaint on March 11, 2026.</p>
<p>An amended complaint followed on May 1, 2026, with service-related materials filed on May 21. A June 13, 2026 order set the next hearing for July 14, 2026.</p>
<h3 id="why-july-14-matters">Why July 14 Matters</h3>
<p>The scheduled hearing gives the court its first opportunity to consider the dismissal arguments before the case advances further. If the motion succeeds, it could prevent the plaintiffs from pursuing similar claims against any of the remaining unnamed wallet holders.</p>
<p>The timeline is unusually compressed. Fewer than four months separate the original filing from a potential dispositive ruling, reflecting the novelty of the legal theory at stake. The case bears some structural resemblance to <a href="https://www.trustscrypto.com/doj-co-conspirator-guilty-bitcoin-kidnapping-carjacking-case/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">other recent Bitcoin-related legal disputes</a> testing how traditional legal frameworks apply to decentralized assets.</p>
<h2 id="why-the-plaintiffs-theory-faces-a-bitcoin-specific-challenge">Why the Plaintiffs' Theory Faces a Bitcoin-Specific Challenge</h2>
<h3 id="dormancy-vs-abandonment">Dormancy vs. Abandonment</h3>
<p>The plaintiffs' core theory treats long-inactive Bitcoin addresses as abandoned property that can be claimed by a new owner. Galaxy Digital's head of research, Alex Thorn, has directly challenged this framing.</p>
<blockquote>
 <p>"Dormancy is a feature of Bitcoin, not a sign of abandonment."</p>
 <p>Alex Thorn, Galaxy Digital, via <a href="https://www.galaxy.com/insights/research/satoshi-bitcoin-salomon-brothers-patoshi-abandoned-property-new-york-noah-doe-lawsuit" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">Galaxy Research</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Bitcoin's design allows holders to store value indefinitely without any onchain activity. A wallet that has not transacted in a decade may simply belong to someone who chose not to move their coins. There is no protocol-level mechanism that distinguishes intentional long-term holding from loss of access.</p>
<h3 id="title-vs-private-keys">Title vs. Private Keys</h3>
<p>Even if a court were to grant legal title over a dormant address, the ruling would not transfer the private keys needed to spend the Bitcoin. A court declaration of ownership and actual onchain control are entirely separate things.</p>
<p>This practical gap means any favorable ruling for the plaintiffs would create a paper claim with no built-in enforcement mechanism. No third party, including a court, can compel the Bitcoin network to redirect funds without the corresponding private key. As regulators continue to grapple with how existing law applies to digital assets, cases like this one highlight the gap between <a href="https://www.trustscrypto.com/rep-maxine-waters-seeks-sec-oversight-hearing-on-crypto-cases/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">legislative oversight efforts</a> and the technical realities of self-custody.</p>
<h2 id="what-the-lawsuit-could-change-and-what-it-cannot">What the Lawsuit Could Change and What It Cannot</h2>
<p>A ruling in the plaintiffs' favor would establish a legal precedent that dormant Bitcoin addresses can be treated as abandoned property under state law. That precedent could invite similar claims against other long-inactive wallets.</p>
<p>However, the ruling would not automatically move Bitcoin from those wallets. Without private keys, any court-granted title remains unenforceable at the protocol level. The distinction between legal ownership and technical control is the central tension the case cannot resolve.</p>
<p>According to one unconfirmed report, John Doe 33 may control a wallet holding approximately 5,000 BTC received in April 2014. That attribution has not been independently verified through block explorer data, and readers should treat it as unconfirmed context rather than established fact.</p>
<p>Bitcoin was trading near <a href="https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/bitcoin" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">$62,165</a> at the time of research, placing the total value of even a single large wallet in the suit at potentially hundreds of millions of dollars.</p>
<figure>
 <div>
  <div>
   Bitcoin Spot Price
  </div>
  <div>
   $62,165
  </div>
  <figcaption>
   Readable market reference replacing the raw API source used in research data.
  </figcaption>
 </div>
</figure>
<h2 id="faq-about-the-dormant-bitcoin-wallet-lawsuit">FAQ About the Dormant Bitcoin Wallet Lawsuit</h2>
<h3 id="who-is-john-doe-33">Who Is John Doe 33?</h3>
<p>John Doe 33 is the pseudonym used by the first defendant to respond to the lawsuit. The individual's real identity has not been publicly disclosed. They filed a notice of appearance and motion to dismiss on July 2, 2026.</p>
<h3 id="what-are-the-39-069-dormant-bitcoin-wallets">What Are the 39,069 Dormant Bitcoin Wallets?</h3>
<p>They are Bitcoin addresses that have not transacted for extended periods, named as defendants in the New York Supreme Court case. The plaintiffs argue these addresses hold abandoned property that can be legally claimed.</p>
<h3 id="when-is-the-next-hearing">When Is the Next Hearing?</h3>
<p>Judge Kathy J. King scheduled a hearing for July 14, 2026, per the June 13 court order on the NYSCEF docket. That hearing will be the first opportunity for oral argument on the dismissal motion.</p>
<h3 id="would-a-court-win-give-anyone-the-bitcoin">Would a Court Win Give Anyone the Bitcoin?</h3>
<p>No. A favorable ruling would grant legal title on paper, but Bitcoin can only be moved by whoever holds the private keys. No court order can override the cryptographic requirements of the Bitcoin network.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency and digital asset markets carry significant risk. Always do your own research before making any investment decisions.</p><a href="https://www.trustscrypto.com/?p=5980" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow">Read original article on trustscrypto.com</a>

Defendant Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuit Over 39,069 Dormant Bitcoin Wallets

Table of Contents

TrustsCrypto

Other articles published on Jul 3, 2026

Join our free newsletter for daily crypto updates!