Bitcoin wallet in $293 billion lawsuit transfers $3.1 million in BTC

The Bitcoin address involved in the New York lawsuit transferred 40 bitcoins worth approximately US$3.1 million after being dormant for 14 years.

On September 3, a Bitcoin address "Noah Doe #38097" alleged to be involved in a lawsuit in New York State underwent the first transfer activity after being dormant for a long time since November 5, 2011, transferring 40 bitcoins (BTC). This move attracted market attention about the control behind the address and potential legal ownership.

Transaction details and market impact

According to Galaxy Research data, this transaction was recorded in Bitcoin block 965,330. The agency identified the sender's address as "Noah Doe #38097" and linked it to ongoing ownership litigation over 39,069 so-called "abandoned" Bitcoin wallets. The value of this transfer is approximately US$3.1 million.

It is worth noting that this address has been dormant for more than 14 years since it first received Bitcoin on November 5, 2011. At that time, the price of Bitcoin was only about $3 each. It is calculated that as of the latest transfer, the market value of these bitcoins has increased by approximately 2,571,899%. Although the book value is huge, this only represents price appreciation rather than realized gains. Since the receiving address has not yet been publicly linked to any exchange, it is impossible to determine whether the funds have been sold.

As of September 4, bitcoin trading prices were close to US$81,100, up about 4.3% in 24 hours. There is currently no evidence that the broader market rally is directly related to the 40 BTC transaction or the New York State case.

Background of the lawsuit: Ownership claims against nearly 40,000 addresses

The case is called "ABC Company, XYZ Company and Noah Doe v. John Doe 1-39,069" and was heard by the New York County Supreme Court with case number 153119/2026. The plaintiff sought a court declaration of legal ownership of bitcoins associated with 39,069 addresses. According to reports, these addresses held an estimated 3.7 million to 3.8 million bitcoins at the time of the investigation, with a total value of approximately US$293 billion based on previous reports.

The plaintiff asserted that the addresses met the definition of "abandoned property" under New York State's Personal Property Act Section 7-B. They said the wallets were identified through algorithms and reported to police, while notifying them through small bitcoin transactions that contained messages on the chain. The list allegedly includes addresses attributed to Bitcoin founder Satoshi Nakamoto, and links with Mt. Address related to the Gox theft and a non-expendable burning address. However, such tags are based solely on blockchain analysis and do not necessarily establish legal ownership.

The difference between technical control and legal ownership

The transfer proved that someone had the private key corresponding to the address, but the public blockchain data did not reveal the identity of the person and did not confirm that Bitcoin had been sold. At the legal level, having a private key represents technical control, but it is not the same as legal ownership. Ownership issues still depend on applicable property laws and evidence determination.

Opponents argue that the inactivity of an address does not prove that it has been abandoned. Attorney Ian Cohen, the Digital Chamber and the Bitcoin Policy Institute all challenged the plaintiffs 'arguments. They believe that just because an address can be seen on a public blockchain does not mean it is property that can be "picked up". The Digital Chamber of Commerce warned that treating inactivity as abandonment could create uncertainty for users who deliberately self-custody Bitcoin for a long time and urged the court to dismiss the ownership claim.

Follow-up on the case

Previous precedents have shown that once funds flow occurs at a listed address, the plaintiff may remove it from the claim list. For example, in July, Galaxy Research's Alex Thorn noted that plaintiffs had removed 44 addresses that had been activated due to increased activity after the case began. This suggests that on-chain activities can narrow the scope of complaints.

Although this transaction involves one of the listed addresses, this does not automatically lead to the conclusion of the entire case. Any legal effect will depend on the plaintiff's response and subsequent court filings. The plaintiff may remove the address No. 1 from the request for relief as it would for previously activated addresses. 38097, this needs to be reflected by amending documents or submitting new case records.

In addition, a New York state judge had previously suspended the proceedings, preventing the plaintiff from immediately obtaining a default judgment. The court has not ruled that the addresses are abandoned property, nor has Bitcoin awarded to Noah Doe and related companies. Even if the future judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, this is only a legal confirmation and does not provide a private key, so the transfer cannot be directly performed on the chain. The core disputes of the case-namely whether New York State's lost property laws apply to Bitcoin addresses, as well as jurisdiction and ownership determination issues-still require further court deliberations.