Anonymous "John Doe 33" Moves to Toss New York Case Over 39,069 Inactive Bitcoin Addresses
AI Market Summary
An anonymous defendant moved to dismiss a New York case seeking to "reclaim" 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses allegedly holding ~3.7M BTC, arguing an address is a data string and not a proper defendant or reclaimable property under New York unclaimed-property law. The filing reduces the odds of a default judgment and elevates legal uncertainty around dormant-wallet ownership claims, a potential market-structure and custody precedent relevant to BTC.
Impact level
● Medium
Affected assets
BTC/USDT+0.10%
AI Insight · BTC/USDTAI Insight
● Neutral
Trade now
⚠️ AI-generated insights are based on news content and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not constitute investment advice or represent the views of BingX. Investing involves risk. Please trade responsibly.
An anonymous party identified as "John Doe 33" has asked a New York court to dismiss a lawsuit filed in May that seeks control over 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses, according to Cointelegraph.
The plaintiffs—listed as Noah Doe and two Wyoming limited liability companies—claim ownership of the addresses, which together hold about 3.7 million BTC, worth roughly $234 billion at current prices.
In a notice of appearance and a motion filed Thursday, the defendant said he controls one of the wallets cited in the complaint. He argued that a Bitcoin address is simply a string of data and cannot be named as a proper defendant. He also contended that a public address is not property that can be "reclaimed" under New York's Unclaimed Property Law.
On-chain data indicates the defendant is suspected of controlling a wallet that received 5,000 BTC in April 2014 and has seen no transfers over the past 12 years. At current market prices, the holdings are valued at more than $300 million.
Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy Digital, said the filing averted what would have been an "almost certain" default judgment and raised questions about jurisdiction and statutory shortcomings in the plaintiffs' case.