A New York suit over the ownership of the sleeping bitcoin address is still pending, and after almost 15 years of silence, 30 BTCs were transferred, amounting to approximately $1.88 million at current prices. This transfer occurred during the stay of the court case and gave renewed attention to the issue of attribution of the long-silent address.
New transfers to the wallet in question
The action was filed by a plaintiff, alias “Noah Doe”, and two companies registered in Wyoming, requesting the New York court to find that the listed Bitcoin wallets were abandoned property and that article 7-B of the New York State Personal Property Act applied.
The plaintiff claimed that part of the wallet holder permanently lost access due to a security breach. They indicated that an attempt to identify the controller of the relevant address had been made more than a year before the indictment had been completed.
The number of disputed addresses reached 39069.
According to the pleadings, a total of 39069 addresses were included in the dispute, which also included the wallets of the outside world, which were generally linked to the founding fathers of Bitcoin. The founder of the Timechain Index analysis platform, Sani, stated that the address together held approximately 3.7 million BTCs, estimated at approximately $23.4 billion in current prices.
This time, 30 BTCs were transferred from one of the long hibernation addresses. It was also mentioned that as the case continued, more sleeping addresses related to the case began to show signs of activity.
- Transfer size of 30 BTC
- The wallet had been silent for almost 15 years.
- Total disputed addresses held approximately 3.7 million BTCs
The Court will hear oral arguments next week.
The Supreme Court of New York judge, Kathy J. King, had ordered a stay of the case in June, pending oral arguments on 14 July. The order also restricted the applicant from applying for a judgement in absentia prior to the hearing.
At the same time, a defendant, “John Doe 33”, who claimed control of one of the addresses, had requested the court to dismiss the case. He argued that the Bitcoin address was a data string and not a subject of law and therefore could not be the subject of an indictment.
Another M&A lawyer, Ian R. Cohen, applied to participate as an amicus curiae to challenge the plaintiff ' s interpretation of the New York State law on lost property and, in particular, to oppose the direct application of the rule to the self-custody bitcoin wallet.
The central issue in this case is whether long inactive chain addresses can be considered abandoned property under existing law. If the Court were to take up this logic, it might have a broader impact on the determination of ownership of sleeping encrypted assets.