An anonymous plaintiff using the name 'Noah Doe' filed a 901-page complaint on May 1, 2026, seeking title to 39,069 dormant Bitcoin wallets reportedly holding about 3.79 million BTC (≈$285 billion). Doe invokes New York Personal Property Law Article 7-B and argues that USB drives containing references to the wallets — which were reported to and returned by the NYPD — vested title. The filing acknowledges 424 wallets showed activity and were excluded, and Doe waited 19 months rather than the statute's three-year requirement. Crucially, Doe has not produced private keys, so the Bitcoin remains inaccessible.
Anonymous 'Noah Doe' Files 901‑Page Suit Seeking Nearly $285B in Dormant Bitcoin — But Lacks The Keys
“Noah Doe” of NYC Tries to Score $286B Worth of Bitcoin - Moby
On May 1, 2026, an anonymous plaintiff filing under the name 'Noah Doe' submitted a 901-page complaint to the Supreme Court of New York seeking title to 39,069 long-dormant Bitcoin addresses said to contain roughly 3.79 million BTC — about $285 billion at current prices.
Background
The complaint alleges that Doe developed an algorithm to scan the Bitcoin blockchain for addresses matching an 'abandoned' profile. The filing says the algorithm flagged 42,001 wallets; 424 showed on-chain activity and were removed from the claim, leaving 39,069 addresses targeted in the suit.
The Legal Theory
Doe's team frames the case under New York Personal Property Law Article 7-B, which governs found or unclaimed physical property. The statute normally requires property worth $5,000 or more to remain unclaimed for more than three years before someone else can assert title. Doe waited about 19 months.
To bridge that timing gap, the complaint argues that the relevant property is not the Bitcoin itself but USB drives that allegedly contain references to the targeted wallets. According to the filing, those drives were reported to the NYPD, later returned to Doe, and — per paragraph 51 of the complaint — title vested in Doe as a result.
Practical and Technical Obstacles
Even if a court considered this novel statutory reading, a far more concrete obstacle remains: Doe has not produced the private keys needed to control the addresses. Bitcoin access depends on possession of private keys, and there is no judicial tool that can recover or recreate those keys. In practice, courts cannot 'open' cryptography by order.
The bottom line: The complaint advances an imaginative legal theory, but without private keys the identified Bitcoin remains inaccessible and effectively where it has always been.
What Comes Next
The case will test how traditional property laws intersect with blockchain assets, and it may prompt courts and lawmakers to clarify how statutes like Article 7-B apply to digital property. For now, however, the technical reality of cryptographic ownership makes Doe's claim largely symbolic unless private keys are produced or another practical means of access is found.
Help us improve.
