Doe 33 seeks dismissal of suit over 39,069 Bitcoin addresses
Pseudonymous defendant ‘John Doe 33’ moved to dismiss a New York suit over 39,069 Bitcoin addresses, arguing addresses are data strings and not subject to lost-property law.
A pseudonymous defendant identifying as ‘John Doe 33’ filed a notice of appearance and a motion to dismiss in New York on Thursday. The defendant asked the court to dismiss a May lawsuit that names 39,069 Bitcoin addresses and seeks ownership of coins tied to those addresses.
The motion argues Bitcoin address strings are data, not persons or legal entities, and therefore are not subject to personal jurisdiction. It contends a public blockchain address cannot be “found” under New York’s lost-property law because addresses have been visible on the ledger since their creation.
The filing says the defendant controls at least one of the dormant wallets named in the complaint and notes that possession of private keys is required to access funds at those addresses. The complaint does not allege the plaintiffs hold the private keys.
The suit was filed in May by a plaintiff using the name ‘Noah Doe’ together with two Wyoming limited liability companies, ABC Company and XYZ Company. The plaintiffs reported the coins to the New York Police Department and are claiming them under state lost-property statutes.
The complaint lists 39,069 addresses, including addresses widely associated with Bitcoin’s creator Satoshi Nakamoto and an address linked to the Mt. Gox hacker. Sani, founder of analytics platform Timechain Index, estimated the listed addresses hold about 3.7 million BTC, valued at about $234 billion at current prices.
Blockchain analytics show long-term dormancy across the supply. One provider reported about 3.5 million BTC inactive for at least 10 years and another reported about 6.6 million BTC inactive for more than five years.
Public blockchain records indicate ‘John Doe 33’ appears to control a wallet that received 5,000 BTC in April 2014 and has not moved those coins. Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy Digital, posted on social media that the 5,000-BTC holding is ‘~100x the median defendant address’ and called the filer ‘a real holder with real standing choosing to fight, not a bystander.’ Thorn added the notice of appearance likely prevented a near-certain default judgment and raised jurisdictional and statutory questions for the court.
The motion challenges both jurisdiction and statutory standing. The court docket shows the motion has been filed; the court has not yet set a date for further proceedings or issued a ruling.
The material on GNcrypto is intended solely for informational use and must not be regarded as financial advice. We make every effort to keep the content accurate and current, but we cannot warrant its precision, completeness, or reliability. GNcrypto does not take responsibility for any mistakes, omissions, or financial losses resulting from reliance on this information. Any actions you take based on this content are done at your own risk. Always conduct independent research and seek guidance from a qualified specialist. For further details, please review our Terms, Privacy Policy and Disclaimers.
Articles by this author
