Key Takeaways:
The Bitcoin Policy Institute's intervention turns a dormant-wallet property dispute into a landmark test of whether self-custody itself carries legal risk.
The Bitcoin Policy Institute filed to intervene as a defendant on July 10 in a New York lawsuit seeking legal title to nearly 40,000 dormant bitcoin addresses, arguing that a win for the plaintiffs would threaten the viability of long-term self-custody for every bitcoin holder.
The case, ABC Company, XYZ Company, and Noah Doe v. John Does 1-39,069, Index No. 153119/2026, asks the New York County Supreme Court to declare the plaintiffs rightful owners of 39,069 addresses under the state's lost property statute, on the theory that coins untouched for at least five years were abandoned. At current prices, the wallets hold roughly $293 billion in bitcoin.
"The reserve has the same features as the so-called 'Abandoned Wallets' named in the suit," Conner Brown, BPI's managing director, said in a sworn affirmation. If the plaintiffs prevail, Brown said, BPI would face pressure to abandon self-custody and hand its bitcoin to a third-party custodian simply to avoid a future claim.
BPI's proposed answer, filed alongside the intervention motion, denies nearly every substantive allegation in the amended complaint and raises 15 affirmative defenses. Among them: bitcoin addresses are not "property" under New York Personal Property Law, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over anonymous global wallet holders, and Noah Doe never became a "finder" by handing a list of public addresses to police. White & Case partner Rachel Rodman, representing BPI, told the court the organization wants permission to file a motion to dismiss before submitting a formal answer.
The case has drawn a crowded field of intervenors and interested parties. The Digital Chamber, a digital asset trade group, filed a notice of appearance on July 9 through Brown Rudnick attorney Stephen D. Palley, signaling its own stake in the outcome. A pseudonymous wallet holder identified as John Doe 33 became the first named defendant to formally contest the suit, filing a motion to dismiss on June 30. On-chain activity has complicated the plaintiffs' abandonment theory: several named wallets have moved bitcoin since the case drew public attention, including a 500 BTC transfer on July 2.
Meanwhile, Noah Doe's attorney filed a memorandum on July 7 asking the court to deny amicus status to attorney Ian Cohen, who sought permission in May to file a brief opposing the lawsuit. The plaintiffs' counsel argued Cohen's submission cites only 12 judicial decisions across 35 pages and leans on unsupported policy arguments rather than legal authority.
Every thread converges on a single date. Justice Kathy J. King is scheduled to hear oral arguments on July 14 at 10:30 a.m. at 60 Centre Street, addressing Cohen's amicus application, the ongoing stay triggered by his filing, John Doe 33's motion to dismiss, and BPI's request to intervene. The hearing will not resolve the underlying declaratory judgment claim, but it will determine who gets a seat at the table as the case moves forward.
The stakes extend beyond the 39,069 addresses at issue. If the court grants the plaintiffs' claim under New York's lost property statute, it would establish a legal mechanism for third parties to petition for title to any bitcoin wallet that has not moved funds within a statutory period — effectively creating a statute of limitations on self-custody. BPI's intervention ensures that argument will be tested before any default judgment can be entered.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
