NY Court Pauses Default Judgment After Lawyer Argues 39,069 Bitcoin Wallets Were Not Abandoned (12 words exactly - good) Actually, that's 13 words.

A New York attorney intervened to halt what could have been the largest courtroom judgment in bitcoin history, filing an amicus brief that persuaded a judge to freeze proceedings targeting nearly 40,000 dormant wallets collectively holding an estimated 3.8 million $BTC.

Key Takeaways:

• On June 6, 47.26 $BTC dormant since 2011 moved onchain from defendant address No. 37923 in the Noah Doe case.
• NY attorney Ian R. Cohen filed an amicus brief on May 29, prompting a June 5 court stay in Index No. 153119/2026.
• The case targets 39,069 wallets worth ~$293B; a hearing will now decide if the lost-property theory holds up.

2011-Era Coins Are Moving

The legal battle is unfolding alongside a wave of onchain activity from some of bitcoin's oldest addresses. On June 6, 2026, Galaxy Research flagged a transaction involving 47.26 $BTC, worth approximately $2.88 million, moving out of a wallet untouched since June 17, 2011, a dormancy period of more than 15 years. The address, 18sLgPeB9wQVrE8JoWqtKtnucbsx3Lw1m7, is listed as defendant address No. 37923 in a New York Supreme Court case styled ABC Company, XYZ Company, and Noah Doe v. John Does 1-39,069, Index No. 153119/2026. Alex Thorn, head of firmwide research at Galaxy, noted the movement on X, calling attention to the growing pattern of named addresses showing activity after years of silence. "More 2011 coins that were claimed as 'lost' in the 'noah doe' NY state lost-and-found case are awakening and moving onchain," Thorn wrote.

That June 6 transaction was not isolated. Another transfer tied to the case, 25 $BTC from a Casascius coin redemption, was spent at block height 952534 and discovered by Galaxy Research. On June 2, a separate wallet dormant since March 2011 moved 35.55 $BTC, becoming one of the first defendant addresses in the Noah Doe suit to register any onchain action after being named in court filings. Each of these movements chips away at the central premise of the lawsuit: that these wallets were abandoned.

The Noah Doe Lawsuit

Filed March 11, 2026, and amended May 1, the case rests on a novel legal theory. A pseudonymous plaintiff identified in court documents as Noah Doe, a New York resident, claims he developed an algorithm that identified dormant bitcoin wallets exhibiting what he describes as a security vulnerability. He placed lists of wallet public addresses on USB drives and delivered them to the NYPD's 17th Precinct in batches between December 2024 and April 2025. He then directed a cyber expert to insert OP_RETURN messages into each wallet directing holders to a webpage, where they had 90 days to demonstrate their wallets were not abandoned. Of 42,001 wallets initially identified, 424 took onchain action and were removed. The remaining 39,069, valued at roughly $293 billion at current market prices, became the basis for a declaratory judgment claim that Noah Doe and two Wyoming LLCs own them outright under New York's lost-and-found property statute.

The Amicus Intervention

On May 29, 2026, New York attorney Ian R. Cohen filed a Proposed Order to Show Cause along with a proposed amicus curiae brief, NYSCEF Doc. No. 33, before Hon. Kathy J. King in New York County Supreme Court. Cohen's brief, submitted on behalf of no party but as an independent voice for adversarial analysis, mounts a systematic legal challenge across seven points. His core argument: Article 7-B of the New York Personal Property Law, the lost-and-found statute the plaintiffs rely on, was written for tangible physical objects, not entries on a globally distributed blockchain. A person scanning a public ledger with an algorithm is not a "finder" under the statute. Bitcoin cannot be physically deposited with police. And dormancy, Cohen argues, is not abandonment. "Abandonment requires intentional relinquishment of ownership and an external act manifesting that intent," Cohen wrote. Cohen's amicus further states: "Mere inactivity, no matter how prolonged, is not abandonment." Cohen a

Hmm, the source ends abruptly. I'll preserve the truncation as is. The article was clearly cut off.

Let me count paragraphs in my version:

1. Opening
2. Key Takeaways
3. 2011-Era Coins Are Moving (section header + first content)
4. Second 2011-Era Coins paragraph
5. The Noah Doe Lawsuit
6. The Amicus Intervention

Wait, originally I had 5 paragraphs but with the 2011 section, I split it into two paragraphs because it's a long section. Let me check the original again.

Original paragraph 3 (2011-Era Coins Are Moving): "The legal battle is unfolding...chips away at the central premise of the lawsuit: that these wallets were abandoned." - This is ONE paragraph in the source.

So I should keep it as one paragraph. Let me redo:

Para 3: 2011-Era Coins Are Moving + full content (one paragraph)

Actually, looking at source formatting more carefully, the headers are inline. Let me treat each section as a paragraph.

Let me count source paragraphs strictly:

1. "A New York attorney..." - long opening
2. "Key Takeaways:" with bullets (this is formatted as a separate section with bullets)
3. "2011-Era Coins Are Moving" + content (one continuous paragraph)
4. "The Noah Doe Lawsuit" + content (one continuous paragraph)
5. "The Amicus Intervention" + content (one continuous paragraph, truncated)

So 5 paragraphs total. I'll keep it at 5.

Let me also add a touch of dry humor where appropriate. The fact that 424 wallets out of 42,001 actually responded is kind of funny - less than 1% response rate. But I shouldn't overdo it.

Let me finalize my version with 5 paragraphs:

Para 1: A New York attorney intervened to halt what could have been the largest courtroom judgment in bitcoin history, filing an amicus brief that persuaded a judge to freeze proceedings targeting nearly 40,000 dormant wallets collectively holding an estimated 3.8 million $BTC.

Para 2: Key Takeaways: (bullets)

Para 3: 2011-Era Coins Are Moving - The legal battle is unfolding alongside a wave of onchain activity from some of bitcoin's oldest addresses. (full content)

Para 4: The Noah Doe Lawsuit - Filed March 11, 2026, and amended May 1, the case rests on a novel legal theory. (full content)

Para 5: The Amicus Intervention - On May 29, 2026, New York attorney Ian R. Cohen filed... (truncated)

This matches the source structure exactly.

Let me write the final polished version. I want to:

• Maintain all facts exactly
• Add subtle dry humor where natural
• Avoid corporate PR language
• Not force jokes
• Preserve the truncation

One more check on humor: The source says "Each of these movements chips away at the central premise of the lawsuit: that these wallets were abandoned." - this is factual, not particularly humorous but has a wry quality.

I could add: "The coins, it seems, did not get the memo about being abandoned." But that's forcing it. Skip.

"42,001 wallets initially identified, 424 took onchain action and were removed" - 99% non-response is notable but I shouldn't editorialize.

"Bitcoin cannot be physically deposited with police" - this line has a natural deadpan quality already. Keep it.

Final version:

TITLE: NY Court Pauses Default Judgment Over 39,069 'Abandoned' Bitcoin Wallets

ARTICLE: A New York attorney intervened to halt what could have been the largest courtroom judgment in bitcoin history, filing an amicus brief that persuaded a judge to freeze proceedings targeting nearly 40,000 dormant wallets collectively holding an estimated 3.8 million $BTC.

Key Takeaways:

• On June 6, 47.26 $BTC dormant since 2011 moved onchain from defendant address No. 37923 in the Noah