$293B Bitcoin 'Noah Doe' Lawsuit Faces Major Test After First Wallet Holder Files Motion to Dismiss
A pseudonymous bitcoin holder has become the first named defendant to challenge New York’s closely watched lawsuit seeking ownership of roughly 3. 8 million BTC, as another wallet named in the case moved 500. . .
A pseudonymous bitcoin holder has become the first named defendant to challenge New York’s closely watched lawsuit seeking ownership of roughly 3. 8 million BTC, as another wallet named in the case moved 500 BTC on July 2, further undermining claims the coins were abandoned. Key TakeawaysJohn Doe 33 filed on June 30, challenging Noah Doe’s $293B bitcoin lawsuit. 500 BTC moved July 2 from wallet No. 881, weakening the abandonment theory. Justice Kathy J. King’s July 14 hearing could reshape the Noah Doe litigation. Inside the $293 Billion Bitcoin ClaimThelawsuit, filed March 11, 2026, in the New York Supreme Court, seeks a declaratory judgment awarding ownership of approximately 39,069 dormantbitcoinaddresses collectively holding an estimated 3. 8 millionBTC. The plaintiffs, identified only as Noah Doe along with Wyoming entities ABC Company and XYZ Company, argue they became entitled to the wallets after allegedly identifying dormant addresses with proprietary software, delivering lists of those addresses to the NYPD as found property, and invoking New York’s Personal Property Law Article 7-B governing lost property. The wallet list includes addresses publicly associated with the 2011Mt Goxhack, the Counterpartyburn address, and more than 21,000 addresses researchers have linked to the Patoshi mining pattern widelyattributedtoBitcoincreator Satoshi Nakamoto. Even if the plaintiffs ultimately prevailed, a favorable judgment would not allow them to spend anybitcoinbecause only the correspondingprivate keysauthorize transactions on theBitcoinnetwork. Court Hit the Brakes Before Default JudgmentThe case appeared headed toward a possible default judgment until June 5, when Justice Kathy J. King stayed further proceedings after New York attorney Ian R. Cohensubmitteda proposed amicus curiae brief challenging the plaintiffs’ legal theory. Cohen argued that New York’s lost-and-found statute governs tangible property, notblockchainaddresses, and maintained that prolonged inactivity does not constitute legal abandonment. He also questioned whether the plaintiffs properly served thousands of wallet owners through OP_RETURN messages embedded inbitcointransactions and raised broader jurisdictional concerns. The stay remains in place while the court considers multiple pending motions. On June 18, plaintiffs’ counsel asked the court to vacate or narrow the stay, arguing the litigation should continue despite the amicus filing. First Wallet Holder Enters the FightThe litigation took another significant turn on June 30 when a pseudonymous respondent identifying himself as “John Doe 33” filed both anotice of appearanceand a motion to dismiss, becoming the first actual wallet holder to contest the lawsuit. In the filing, John Doe 33 states he is “a natural person and a real human being,” not abitcoinaddress, digital wallet or line of source code. He further explains that the pseudonym is intended to protect his identity because of the well-known security risks associated with publicly identifiedcryptocurrencyholders, while reserving all legal defenses against the action. His appearance materially changes the posture of the case. Until now, the plaintiffs largely faced no direct opposition from named wallet owners, leaving open the possibility that much of the litigation could proceed without actual respondents participating. Another 500 BTC Move Weakens the Abandonment TheoryJust two days after the filing, another defendant’s wallet became active onchain. On July 2, 2026, 500BTCmoved from address1HnVSXAMkCUHD8EeRxnNXXB6B12oQ9URpV, identified as walletNo. 881in the Noah Doe lawsuit. Blockchainrecords show the transaction transferred the entire balance essentially after paying approximately 57,000 satoshis in network fees. The transfer joins a growing list of wallets named in the complaint that have moved funds since the litigation began attracting public attention. Previous activity included approximately 35. 55BTCfrom a 2011-era wallet on June 2, 47. 26BTCon June 6, roughly 1,878BTCfrom a 2019 wallet on June 7, and approximately 199. 216BTCfrom a 2012-era address on June 19. Each additional transaction presents another challenge to the plaintiffs’ central contention that the wallets were abandoned by their owners. The growing number of active addresses has become one of the most closely watched aspects of the litigation among legal observers and onchain analysts. What Happens Next?The next major milestone comes on July 14, 2026, when oral arguments are scheduled for 10:30 a. m. before Justice Kathy J. King at New York County Supreme Court. The hearing is expected to address Cohen’s amicus application, the plaintiffs’ request to modify or lift the stay, and the newly filed motion to dismiss by John Doe 33, among other procedural issues. The outcome could determine whether the case resumes, remains paused, or is narrowed before reaching the merits. Regardless of the court’s decision, the combination of an active defendant entering the litigation and continued movement from wallets named in the complaint has added new obstacles to one of the most unusual legal challenges ever brought against dormantbitcoinholdings.