Satoshi Bitcoin Case Halted: Court Grants Amicus Hearing on Lost-Property Law
In brief
- Lawsuit sought quiet title to 1.09M Bitcoin under New York's lost-and-found statute filed in March
- Plaintiffs argued Satoshi's dormant addresses constitute abandoned property they can legally claim
- Amicus brief argued dormancy isn't abandonment and private-key possession equals ownership
- Justice Kathy King granted hearing and stayed case on June 4
- Ruling could set precedent for how courts treat self-custodied cryptocurrency
The Lawsuit and Its Claims
The plaintiffs sought quiet title to 3.799 million BTC in total, with a specific focus on 21,744 addresses suspected to belong to Satoshi Nakamoto. The complaint rested on a novel legal theory: that Bitcoin creator Satoshi's coins, untouched for years, qualify as lost property under New York law—and therefore can be claimed by whoever discovers them.
The strategy hinged on dormancy. The plaintiffs argued that Satoshi's coins are lost property that they deserve to own by virtue of finding them. No one had moved the funds. No one had touched the wallets. Ergo, the logic went, the coins were abandoned and available for the taking.
The Counterargument
That theory met resistance. On May 29, Ian R. Cohen filed an amicus brief arguing that the Noah Doe case was invalid. Cohen's core argument: New York's lost-property statute doesn't apply to self-custodied Bitcoin at all.
"He put forward the core point that 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 is someone's savings that simply haven't moved."
Cohen argued that New York's lost-property law doesn't cover self-custodied Bitcoin and that dormancy isn't abandonment, with New York having no jurisdiction over the keys. The distinction matters. A lost wallet in the physical world can be found and claimed. A Bitcoin address whose private key you don't possess can't be opened or moved—you can't "find" what you can't access.
The Stay and What's Next
On June 4, Justice Kathy King granted Cohen a hearing and stayed the entire case. The stay freezes all proceedings, blocking any default judgment in the plaintiffs' favor. Noah Doe's lawyers opposed the stay, with Cohen filing a strong rebuttal in the most recent update to the case.
The stakes are real. A default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs could grant legal title to these BTC, setting a bad precedent for the crypto industry. Courts rarely treat digital assets under old property law without pushback, and this case may clarify whether dormancy of a self-custodied wallet can ever constitute legal abandonment. For now, the case remains frozen pending the hearing.
