A lawsuit filed in New York has brought to the fore a debate foreign to Turkish law, but quite striking for the crypto world, about the official ownership status of Bitcoin wallets that have not been used for a long time. The plaintiff, Noah Doe, claimed that approximately 39 thousand Bitcoin addresses showed no activity and applied to the court to transfer the legal rights over these wallets to him. The case raised important questions about how classical unclaimed property laws would operate on decentralized digital currencies.
Legal basis and plaintiff’s strategy
In the petition submitted by Noah Doe to the New York Supreme Court on May 1, 2026, Article 7-B of the New York Personal Property Law was cited as a basis. The plaintiff claims that the Bitcoin wallets in question are not stolen or exchange-owned funds, but abandoned digital assets. The aim of the process, in which two Wyoming-based companies joined Doe as plaintiffs, is to officially register the legal ownership of the cryptocurrencies and wallets in the wallets in question.
According to the file details, Doe identified a total of 42,001 wallets on the grounds that they might be “unclaimed” using an algorithmic method he developed personally. After informing the authorities, 2,932 wallets were removed from the list and 39,069 addresses remained. The main claim in the lawsuit ongoing through these addresses is that wallets that appear to have no owner can be legally and officially transferred to their new owner.
Technical and legal challenges are on the agenda
The case revolves around reporting obligations, ownership transfer procedures, and the concept of unclaimed digital assets. Because Bitcoin wallets are controlled by private keys, courts cannot reassign these assets through traditional methods. A possible positive decision would not technically provide access to assets; It will be more of a symbolic and legal registration.
Plaintiff Doe informed wallet owners and relevant parties about the official application process by leaving a message on the blockchain with “OP_RETURN” transactions in June 2025, and a public notification process was carried out until October 10, 2025, as required by law.
However, during technical investigations, it was determined that notification messages were mostly sent to addresses of the “P2PKH” type, and the crypto was often kept in the “P2PK” type. This raises a serious counter-argument that adequate and direct transportation is not provided to the real owners.
Mini dictionary: OP_RETURN – A special type of transaction that adds extra data (e.g. short text message) to a Bitcoin transaction and can be permanently stored on the blockchain.
Could be a turning point in crypto ownership
The wallets in question are associated with early miners and historical figures of Bitcoin. While some addresses may be linked to the Satoshi Nakamoto era, wallets allegedly associated with the Mt.Gox attack are also on the list. A long list of wallets, totaling 901 pages, was submitted to the court.
This situation will shake the “self-custody” principle in Bitcoin. Wallets remaining inactive for long periods of time may not always mean lost keys; There may be deceased owners, heirs or just long-term investors. Doe, on the other hand, argues that the fact that no one appears despite all notifications is sufficient for the transfer of ownership.
The application of classical property law on crypto assets paves the way for serious discussions. Bitcoin operates independently of any central structure; The court decision may affect the exchanges, but no transaction can be carried out without a private key at the protocol level.
