The U.S. Digital Assets Industry Organization Digital Chamber of Commerce has submitted an amicus curiae opinion to the New York court against an action for long-silent title to a bitcoin address. If the court accepts the plaintiff ' s claim, the long unused self-custody wallet may be included in the orphan ' s property and affect the determination of ownership of digital assets.
The proceedings involved 39069 addresses
This case was first filed in May this year. The plaintiff, Noah Doe, and two companies registered in Wyoming, requested the Supreme Court of New York to determine that 39069 long inactive bitcoin addresses belonged to orphan property within the meaning of section 7-B of the New York Personal Property Act and to transfer ownership of those addresses to the plaintiff.
The founder of the chain analysis platform Timechain Index, Sani, stated that approximately 3.7 million BTCs were held in the total number of disputed addresses. At current prices, the value is approximately $234.0 billion. The list also includes some of the addresses that are relevant to the heart of the founders of Bitcoin.
The Digital Chamber of Commerce opposes legal interpretation
In its submission on Monday, the Digital Chamber of Commerce stated that if the court allowed the long-silent self-custody wallet to be treated as owner-free, it could create a continuing uncertainty over the whole system of self-custody wallets. In the view of the organization, the plaintiff ' s interpretation of the New York state law would not only affect the wallets involved in the case, but could also affect the broader way in which digital assets were held.
The Digital Chamber of Commerce has also argued that this legal logic may weaken the established principles of digital property rights, with implications not limited to the encryption industry, but may extend to the recognition of the possession and attribution of traditional financial assets.
More objections have emerged.
According to court documents, Noah Doe alleged that he had discovered a security gap in some of the wallets, which had permanently deprived the original holder of access to Bitcoin. He stated that he had spent more than a year trying to identify the wallet owner and subsequently transferred most of the claims to two Wyoming State companies.
However, legal action against the case is increasing. Last week, a defendant in the name of “John Doe 33” applied to the court for dismissal on the grounds that the Bitcoin address was a data string and not a subject of law that could be prosecuted. The M&A lawyer, Ian R. Cohen, also applied to participate as an amicus curiae to challenge the plaintiff ' s interpretation of the New York law on loss of property.
Some silent addresses are back active
During the proceedings, some of the names on the list were retransferred. Alex Thorn, Research Manager of Galaxy Digital, recently indicated that at least 31 addresses were transferred to a total of 17527 BTCs in June of this year; compared to 5 addresses in February this year, only 4834 BTCs were transferred.
At present, New York State Supreme Court Justice Kathy J. King has suspended his case pending oral arguments on 14 July. This means that the plaintiff could not apply for a judgement in absentia before the hearing.
Even if the plaintiff ultimately prevailed in court, it was not clear whether the relevant bitcoin would actually be controlled. The use of the funds in the wallets still requires the possession of the corresponding private keys, which the prosecution itself does not prove to be in possession of.