A Bitcoin address named in a New York lawsuit involving 39,069 allegedly abandoned addresses transferred 40 BTC on Sept. 3 after remaining inactive since Nov. 5, 2011.
Summary
- A Bitcoin address dormant since 2011 transferred 40 BTC worth approximately $3.1 million on Thursday.
- Galaxy linked the address to litigation seeking title over 39,069 allegedly abandoned Bitcoin wallets collectively.
- The transaction demonstrates control of private keys but does not identify the wallet’s legal owner.
- Plaintiffs rely on New York lost-property law, but opponents dispute its application to self-custodied Bitcoin.
- The court has not awarded the disputed coins, and the ownership case remains unresolved.
The transaction was confirmed in Bitcoin block 965,330. Galaxy Research valued the transfer at approximately $3.1 million and identified the sending address as “Noah Doe #38097,” linking it to the pending ownership lawsuit.
The transfer proves that someone controls the private key associated with the address. However, public blockchain data does not reveal that person’s identity or establish whether the Bitcoin was sold.
Bitcoin address moved funds after nearly 15 years
Bitcoin traded near $3 when the wallet received its coins in November 2011. Galaxy calculated that their market value had increased by approximately 2,571,899% by the time of the latest transfer.
That figure represents price appreciation rather than a confirmed realized gain. Moving Bitcoin between addresses does not prove a sale, and the receiving address has not been publicly linked to an exchange.
Bitcoin was trading near $81,100 on Sept. 4, up about 4.3% over 24 hours. No evidence linked the broader market increase directly to the 40 BTC transaction or the New York case.
The latest movement follows several transfers from older addresses during 2026. In related coverage, six long-dormant wallets moved more than 553 BTC during a ten-day period in August. Two carried labels connecting them to the same lawsuit.
New York lawsuit targets 39,069 Bitcoin addresses
The case, ABC Company, XYZ Company and Noah Doe v. John Does 1–39,069, was filed in New York County Supreme Court under Index No. 153119/2026. The plaintiffs seek a declaration giving them legal title to Bitcoin associated with 39,069 addresses.
Those addresses held an estimated 3.7 million to 3.8 million BTC when researchers examined the complaint. Their combined dollar value has varied with Bitcoin’s price and was estimated at approximately $293 billion during earlier reporting.
The list reportedly includes addresses attributed to Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto, an address associated with the Mt. Gox theft and an unspendable burn address. Such labels are based on blockchain analysis and do not necessarily establish legal ownership.
The plaintiffs claim the addresses qualify as abandoned property under Article 7-B of New York’s Personal Property Law. They say the wallets were identified through an algorithm, reported to police and notified through small Bitcoin transactions containing on-chain messages.
Wallet movement challenges but does not end the claim
Activity from a listed address conflicts with the assertion that nobody controls its private key. The plaintiffs have previously removed addresses from their claim after those addresses moved funds.
In July, Galaxy Research’s Alex Thorn said the plaintiffs had dropped 44 addresses that became active after the case began. Those removals show that on-chain activity can narrow the addresses covered by the complaint.
However, the latest transaction does not automatically “thwart” or end the entire case. It directly concerns one listed address. Any legal effect will depend on the plaintiffs’ response and subsequent court filings.
The transfer also does not prove that the person moving the Bitcoin is its lawful owner. It demonstrates technical control, while ownership remains a separate legal question involving evidence and applicable property law.
Opponents say inactivity does not prove abandonment
Attorney Ian Cohen, the Digital Chamber and the Bitcoin Policy Institute have challenged the plaintiffs’ theory. Their arguments maintain that an address is not property that somebody can “find” merely by viewing it on a public blockchain.
The Digital Chamber warned that treating inactivity as abandonment could create uncertainty for people who deliberately hold Bitcoin in self-custody for extended periods. As crypto.news reported, the organization urged the court to reject the dormant-wallet ownership claim.
A New York judge previously paused the proceedings, preventing the plaintiffs from immediately obtaining a default judgment. The court has not ruled that the addresses are abandoned or awarded their Bitcoin to Noah Doe and the two companies.
What happens next in the Bitcoin ownership case
The plaintiffs may remove address No. 38097 from their requested relief, as they reportedly did with previously activated addresses. Any change should appear through an amended filing or another submission on the case docket.
The broader case will still require the court to consider jurisdiction, ownership and whether New York’s lost-property statute can apply to Bitcoin addresses. Even a favorable judgment would not provide the plaintiffs with private keys or enable an on-chain transfer without them.
