In New York, a seemingly bizarre "lost property claim" lawsuit is pushing the world of blockchain onto the dissecting table of traditional civil law. The plaintiff, using the pseudonym "Noah Doe," along with two limited liability companies from Wyoming, has filed a lawsuit claiming that according to New York's lost property laws, they have reported to the police and "discovered" approximately 3.7 million coins—valued at roughly $234 billion based on public estimates—spread across 39,069 Bitcoin addresses, and seeks a court declaration confirming their ownership of the assets within these addresses. The defendant, appearing under the pseudonym "John Doe 33," has submitted a motion in New York court to dismiss the lawsuit outright, raising a question that could choke the entire case: Bitcoin addresses are merely a string of data on a public ledger, neither a natural person nor a legal entity, cannot be sued, do not bear rights and obligations, and are not suitable to be registered as "lost property" picked up by someone. With the submission of this motion, the controversy is no longer about who this anonymous big holder is, but whether the set of rules designed around real-world lost property can be forcibly applied to dormant assets on the blockchain; and a deeper question is whether blockchain addresses can be recognized in court as the boundary for lawsuits and ownership determinations. This lost property claim involving millions of Bitcoin is being pushed to a potential transformative position regarding industry compliance and judicial practice boundaries.

3.7 Million BTC Claim Under Fire

Narratively speaking, plaintiff "Noah Doe" is undertaking what looks very much like a carefully designed "legal arbitrage." He and his two Wyoming limited liability companies first "noticed" a batch of large Bitcoin addresses on-chain, claiming that the roughly 3.7 million Bitcoins valued at about $234 billion had been forgotten or abandoned by their original rights holders. Therefore, they have leveraged a set of rules originally designed for physically lost wallets and diamond rings: reporting these on-chain assets to the police as "lost property" according to New York's lost property laws. Building on this foundation, they further translated the police reports into civil litigation requests, directly suing in New York court to demand a favorable declaration of ownership for all assets in 39,069 Bitcoin addresses, essentially attempting to use a "lost property claim" to seize an entire area of dormant on-chain assets.

The problem lies in the fact that if this pathway is recognized, it would mean anyone finding large amounts of unclaimed on-chain assets could attempt to package them as "lost property" using the lost property laws, seeking a court declaration to obtain ownership. The defendant "John Doe 33" chose to directly target this pathway itself rather than getting embroiled in the specific transactions to manipulate the facts. He has requested the New York court to dismiss the plaintiff’s request before the case enters substantive hearings, with one of the reasons being that Bitcoin addresses are merely data strings on a public ledger, neither a natural person nor a legal entity, fundamentally incapable of being a "defendant" or "owner." This motion places the misalignment between New York's lost property laws and on-chain public ledgers before the judge: whether rules traditionally used for off-chain lost item recovery and return can be forcibly applied to the open, transparent, and traceable record on the blockchain. If the court accepts this motion to dismiss, it will signify a clear judicial denial of the claim arbitrage path that seeks to package large-scale on-chain assets as "lost property."

Defendant's Counterattack: Bitcoin Addresses Are Not Defendants

In this motion to dismiss the lawsuit, "John Doe 33" is not targeting the plaintiff’s narrative of facts but rather the fundamental premise on which the case is founded—who is being sued. His core argument is highly "de-technicalized": Bitcoin addresses are essentially just data strings, a set of characters recorded on a public ledger, neither a natural person nor a company or other legal entity, having no legal status for bearing rights and obligations. Unlike traditional "lost property" cases, where a specific finder or possessor can be identified, the plaintiff in this case chose to directly claim rights over the "39,069 addresses," deliberately circumventing the path of "who controls the private keys and who truly holds." This gives the defendant space to respond with a "one-size-fits-all" rebuttal from a procedural threshold perspective.

This hits at the core of the U.S. civil litigation system—who qualifies to sit in the defendant's seat, and how the court serves documents to them. The general practice of U.S. courts is to require that defendants be identifiable entities, to clarify who is held accountable for the judgment, and to facilitate the completion of a set of procedures, such as filing, serving, and enforcing. Here, the plaintiff has neither identified a specific holder of the coins nor indicated any private key holder, merely attempting to bring the addresses themselves into the courtroom. The defendant, appearing as "John Doe 33," highlights the case's highly anonymous and unidentifiable reality while also forcing the court to confront a question that has been intentionally avoided: whether the court has the authority to file, adjudicate, and render judgments on a string of characters when rights and obligations cannot be attributed to specific natural persons or legal entities. If the New York court recognizes the argument "addresses are not defendants," then all future attempts to bypass the real controller and directly sue the "address itself" will be significantly tightened from the procedural entry level, compelling related disputes to revert to the traditional pathway of "finding the person before discussing rights."

Lost Property Law Meets On-Chain Transparent Ledger

Even if the procedural hurdle of "can addresses be defendants" is crossed, there exists a structural misalignment between New York's lost property law and on-chain ledgers. The premise of traditional lost property law is a clear physical scenario: the owner and the physical object are spatially separated, introducing the intermediary role of a "finder," with the state rebuilding order through reporting, public announcements, return, or final attribution to the finder. New York's lost property law was originally designed around lost items like wallets and jewelry, not for handling a string of digitally resting balances on a public ledger. The plaintiff's claim of approximately 3.7 million BTC as "lost property" from 39,069 addresses effectively equates the points of "dormancy on-chain" and "unclaimed actively" to a physically lost item "forgotten on the street corner." Whether this analogy holds directly determines whether the lost property law can be recognized by the court as an applicable framework.

The issue is that the on-chain world does not have "finders" in the traditional sense. Bitcoin addresses and balances are publicly visible on the ledger; anyone can "see" these coins sitting there, but no one gains possession simply by "seeing." The true determinant of control is the private key, and whether the private key still exists or has been destroyed is entirely unverifiable to the outside world. In this technological structure, presuming dormant addresses as "lost property" based solely on public ledgers carries the risk that should the original controller someday regain access, such a "claim" based on lost property law could directly conflict with existing rights and might even evolve into a legally packaged predation model. Research briefs note that prior similar "Bitcoin lost property claim" lawsuits have sparked debate in market and legal circles about the legal status of on-chain assets, with significant divergences in jurisdictional views on "is it a thing, a right, or pure data?" How the New York court handles the boundary of "on-chain dormancy ≠ naturally lost" not only matters for the litigants in this case but will also draw a visible red line globally on "how to forcibly apply traditional property rules to public ledgers."

The Direction of Rulings Will Redefine Compliance Boundaries

If the New York court ultimately supports the defendant's motion, denying that "addresses can be defendants" and that "lost property laws can be directly applied to on-chain assets," the greatest change will re-pin "long-term dormancy" back to a technical fact rather than a legal signal: on-chain dormancy will no longer be presumed to be a sign of abandonment or loss of rights for all, and large claims initiated solely based on "years of inactivity" will be cut off. For large holders of Bitcoin, this essentially confirms a freedom of possession, whereby "silence does not equate to risk exposure;" for plaintiffs attempting to bypass real rights holders using the lost property framework, such operations will be blocked both procedurally and substantively, making it hard to replicate the idea of "suing an address" to consolidate ownership.

Conversely, if the court rejects the defendant's motion and allows the case to delve into substantive hearings on "whether addresses can become procedural handles" and "whether dormancy can be seen as an indication of loss," and perhaps even partially adopts the plaintiff's stance, then "long-term inactivity" on-chain will gain new compliance implications: it need not equate to being lost, yet it is sufficient to trigger police reporting, court acceptance, and potentially judicial procedures for redistributing ownership. This would mean more claims targeting dormant large addresses may be imitated, and custodial institutions and trading platforms will face greater pressure on the boundaries of freezing and assisting execution—on top of their current obligations to cooperate with regulators and courts regarding specific assets, they might be required to take action on "nominally unresponsive, long-dormant on-chain" assets, rather than simply complying with explicit account instructions. Regardless of which way the final ruling sways, this New York lawsuit will become a significant reference point in global judicial practice for directly answering the question "are on-chain dormant assets long-held, or can they be treated by the law as lost property?"

The Next Game: How Will the New York Court Decide

Looking ahead from this New York lawsuit, the game has been forced to break down into three layers: first, whether digital assets are seen as independently disposable property or more like what the defendant described as "data strings," directly affecting whether they can find stable positions in future legislation regarding property classification, custodial obligations, and lost asset handling; second, whether Bitcoin addresses can become "defendants" in procedural law, or if the court will remain adamant that only natural persons or legal entities can serve as litigation subjects, which will determine who to sue, how to deliver the summons, and how to enforce similar on-chain disputes in the future; third, whether New York's lost property laws can be extended to apply to dormant assets on public ledgers or should be cut off at the traditional "offline lost item" scenarios, delineating the applicable boundaries of "on-chain lost property claims." Currently, the case number and progress nodes are not fully disclosed, and the New York court has yet to express its position on the motion to dismiss, making the possibility for appeal highly probable. This suggests that the regulatory vacuum surrounding on-chain dormant assets will be continuously magnified in a lengthening period of uncertainty. For the U.S. and other jurisdictions, any substantial judgment from New York is likely to be cited in future rulings, compelling lawmakers and regulatory agencies to address on-chain assets not just on the basis of securities laws, anti-money laundering statutes, and sanctions frameworks but to provide direct guidance on the dimension of "lost assets;" ultimately, what will decide the game rules is not the fate of an anonymous address but how major jurisdictions will redraw a clear and enforceable boundary between "on-chain lost property claims" and traditional property systems.

Join our community, let’s discuss and grow stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。