Odaily Odaily News: Galaxy Digital Head of Research Alex Thorn has released the latest updates on the litigation surrounding the "attempt to claim legal ownership of Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin." The case, filed by two anonymous Wyoming companies, seeks to have a court declare that addresses holding approximately 39,069 long-dormant Bitcoins constitute "abandoned property," thereby granting them legal title to the associated BTC. The assets involved are reportedly valued at over $200 billion and include wallets believed to be from the "Satoshi Nakamoto era."
1. On May 29, Bitcoin lawyer Ian R. Cohen submitted an amicus curiae brief. His core arguments include: New York State's lost property law does not apply to self-custodied Bitcoin; "dormancy" does not equal "abandonment"; and the court has no jurisdiction over private keys. He emphasized that in the Bitcoin system, "control of the private key is ownership," and without control of the private key, one cannot claim the assets.
2. On June 4, Judge Kathy King granted Cohen's request for a hearing and issued a stay on the entire case, freezing subsequent proceedings pending a formal hearing. This action effectively blocked the plaintiffs from obtaining a ruling via the "no appearance → default judgment" path.
3. On June 18, plaintiff's attorney David Lin filed a motion to lift or narrow the stay, arguing that non-parties should not influence the case's progress and that an amicus brief is unnecessary if the defendants do not appear.
4. On June 19, Cohen submitted a strong rebuttal, stating that the stay was proactively issued by the court and that the "lack of defendants" is the structural issue of the case itself. The 39,069 addresses, as "defendants," cannot appear in court, so the court must rely on third-party opinions to avoid a one-sided judgment. He further questioned the plaintiffs' move to circumvent procedural hurdles by naming a nominal $10 claim while attempting to establish ownership of Bitcoin potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars. He also highlighted on-chain data showing that some addresses "marked as dormant" had transactions during the case period, with at least 52 addresses moving approximately 34,335 BTC (~$2.48 billion), including 29 addresses transferring about 12,302 BTC "after service of process," undermining the core premise of "abandoned assets."
Alex Thorn analyzed that the case is still under review. A default judgment could have profound implications for the legal definition of self-custodied Bitcoin, sparking a long-term debate over whether dormant addresses equal unclaimed assets.
