Digital Chamber Files Amicus Brief to Seek Dismissal of NY Suit Over 39,069 BTC Wallets

A New York lost-property lawsuit targeting dormant Bitcoin wallets has drawn a fresh filing from the Digital Chamber, a major blockchain industry trade association. In a Monday amicus brief, the group urged the court to reject claims that inactive self-custody wallets should be treated as abandoned property under state law.

The case, brought in late May by a claimant identified as “Noah Doe” and two Wyoming-based companies, seeks ownership of 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses. The addresses are reported to contain about 3.7 million BTC, valued at roughly $234 billion at the time referenced in the underlying reporting. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the lawsuit could effectively become a test for how dormant or inactive crypto assets should be handled under traditional “lost property” frameworks.

Key takeaways

• The Digital Chamber’s latest amicus brief argues that classifying dormant self-custody wallets as abandoned property would create a “pervasive cloud on title” for crypto owners.
• The filing frames the issue as a threat to the core legal premise of digital property ownership, with potential ripple effects beyond crypto into traditional finance.
• Some wallets named in the lawsuit have already shown renewed activity, complicating assumptions about “dormancy” and control of assets.
• Even if the plaintiffs were to win legally, the private-key requirement remains a practical hurdle for transferring control of funds.

A trade association warns against “cloud on title”

According to the Digital Chamber, allowing the lawsuit’s theory to proceed would undermine widely accepted principles of how digital assets are owned and transferred. In its second amicus brief in the New York case, the organization opposed the plaintiffs’ attempt to establish ownership based on the addresses’ inactivity.

The trade association warned that treating dormant wallets as abandoned property would effectively cast uncertainty over self-custody holdings. The brief characterizes the potential outcome as a “pervasive cloud on title across self-custody wallets,” implying that investors and institutions could face heightened legal risk simply for keeping private keys and not moving funds for extended periods.

Digital Chamber also argued that a decision rooted in the plaintiffs’ approach could have “negative ripple effects” reaching traditional finance. The group’s point appears aimed at the broader market effects of uncertainty—particularly where regulated entities rely on stable, predictable legal definitions of ownership and control.

Digital Chamber describes itself as the oldest and largest digital asset trade association, representing more than 250 members that include exchanges, banks, investment firms, and other participants across the industry.

The dispute centers on dormant wallets and New York’s lost-property law

The lawsuit was filed in late May and targets 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses, according to the reporting cited in earlier coverage from Cointelegraph: New York lawsuit seeks ownership of 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses. The amicus brief arrives as the legal fight begins to take shape around the interpretation of New York’s lost-property statutes as applied to cryptocurrency held in self-custody.

Among the addresses named in the suit, the filing and accompanying discussion referenced estimates placing the total at 3.7 million BTC, with some wallet addresses allegedly linked by analysts to Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto. The earlier reporting that references a claim from Sani (founder of Timechain Index) is attributed in the source text to a post on X: according.

It’s important for readers to recognize what the legal process is actually testing. The argument is not simply about whether money can be recovered from inactive addresses, but about whether inactivity alone can trigger ownership claims under a state framework traditionally used for tangible property.

Renewed wallet activity challenges assumptions about “dormancy”

While the lawsuit proceeds, the real-world behavior of at least some listed addresses has shifted. According to analysis cited in the source text, some of the dormant Bitcoin wallets named in the case have begun moving funds.

Galaxy Digital head of research Alex Thorn, as quoted via an X post referenced in the original report, said at least 31 of the addresses moved 17,527 BTC in June. That compares with earlier activity where only five addresses reportedly transferred 4,834 BTC in February. The figures were attributed to Thorn’s monitoring: according to Alex Thorn.

The renewed activity has included notable cases such as the address “1KV47,” which reportedly transferred 30 BTC—worth about $1.88 million in the source text—on Saturday. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph stated that this marked the wallet’s first movement in almost 15 years, since August 2011: Bitcoin address “1KV47” moved after nearly 15 years.

For investors and market participants, these developments matter because they expose a practical and conceptual mismatch: legal arguments that treat inactivity as a proxy for abandonment can collide with the reality that wallet “dormancy” may be temporary—or could change when private keys are used after long periods.

Private keys remain the gate to control

Even if the plaintiffs’ legal theory were to succeed, the question of control over the underlying Bitcoin remains central. The source text notes that it is unclear how the plaintiffs could gain control of the assets without possessing the private keys to the wallets.

That point effectively highlights the asymmetry between on-chain identifiers (addresses and balances) and off-chain control (private keys). Courts may determine legal ownership, but moving or spending Bitcoin still requires cryptographic authorization.

The case is also not proceeding unopposed. According to the source text, a pseudonymous defendant filed a notice of appearance and a motion to dismiss on Thursday, asserting that they control one of the dormant wallets named in the lawsuit. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph references that dismissal effort: defendant dismiss New York lawsuit.

In practice, that kind of response could reduce the likelihood of any blanket “ownership transfer” outcome, forcing the court to grapple with ownership claims at the level of individual wallets and the rights of those claiming control.

What to watch next

With the Digital Chamber urging rejection on principle and some named wallets already showing movement, the case may hinge on how the court interprets abandonment versus ownership in the context of self-custody. The next key developments to monitor are the court’s handling of motions to dismiss and whether other defendants challenge the plaintiffs’ ability to prove control beyond the addresses themselves.