Bitcoin Policy Institute Joins Battle Over 3.7 Million Dormant BTC in New York Court

Lawsuit Targets Massive Holdings in Dormant Wallets

The plaintiffs, identified as Noah Doe along with two Wyoming-based companies, ABC Company and XYZ Company, filed the case in New York County Supreme Court under Index No. 153119/2026. They seek a declaratory judgment of ownership over approximately 39,069 Bitcoin addresses that have shown no activity for years.

These addresses hold around 3.7 million BTC in total. The holdings include roughly 1.1 million BTC associated with early Bitcoin addresses linked to the network's creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, as well as coins tied to the 2011 Mt. Gox incident and other long-inactive wallets. Estimates placed the total value near $274 billion to $293 billion at the time of filings.

The plaintiffs base their claim on New York’s lost and found property statute, Article 7-B of the Personal Property Law. They argue the wallets qualify as abandoned after remaining untouched. Court records indicate they reported the addresses to the NYPD, sent messages via Bitcoin’s OP_RETURN function, published notices, and waited the required period without responses.

Bitcoin Policy Institute Enters as Defendant

The Bitcoin Policy Institute filed its motion to intervene on July 10, 2026, represented by the law firm White & Case. The group submitted a proposed answer denying key allegations and listed 15 affirmative defenses. It also signaled plans to file a motion to dismiss the case.

In supporting documents, BPI managing director Conner Brown explained that the institute maintains a portion of its treasury in long-term self-custody reserves with no plans for movement over extended periods. These holdings match the characteristics of the wallets named in the suit. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could create risks for such practices.

Broader Opposition in the Case

Multiple parties have pushed back against the plaintiffs' arguments. A defendant known as John Doe 33 filed a verified answer and defenses, claiming his holdings exceeded $80 billion at the time. He argued that public addresses are not legal persons subject to suit and that simply listing them does not constitute finding property.

Amicus briefs came from attorney Ian Cohen and the Digital Chamber. Cohen contended that the lost property law applies to physical items and does not extend to cryptographic addresses. The Digital Chamber warned of potential widespread effects on title for self-custodied assets.

Plaintiffs' counsel has opposed some of these interventions, filing responses that question the value of certain briefs and seeking to lift stays in the proceedings.

Practical Limitations and Recent Developments

Legal experts and analysts, including those from Galaxy Research, noted that even a court victory for the plaintiffs would result only in a declaratory judgment. Without private keys, the plaintiffs could not move or control any of the Bitcoin. Such a judgment might create complications for holders if coins reach regulated platforms but would not transfer actual access.

Activity on the blockchain has further challenged the abandonment claims. Multiple listed wallets transferred funds after the lawsuit became public, with at least 31 addresses moving over 17,000 BTC in recent months. Plaintiffs reportedly removed some addresses from the case following such movements.

Court Timeline and Next Steps

Justice Kathy J. King scheduled a hearing for July 14, 2026, to address the intervention motions, amicus applications, and related filings, including the request from John Doe 33. The proceedings have been paused pending this session.