Is my self-custodied bitcoin at risk from the Noah Doe lawsuit?

If your coins move, almost certainly not. The Noah Doe case targets wallets that have been dormant for many years, on the theory that dormancy equals abandonment under New York's lost property statute. I filed to appear as amicus curiae arguing that statute reaches money, goods, chattels and tangible personal property, and does not describe a private key. A court order also cannot move bitcoin that nobody has the keys to.

If you are using your bitcoin, or moving it periodically, the theory in that case does not reach you. It is built entirely on dormancy.

What the case actually claims

A pseudonymous claimant asked a New York court to declare them the owner of bitcoin sitting in 39,069 wallets that have not transacted in many years, roughly 3.8 million BTC, valued in press coverage at approximately $293 billion. The claimant holds no private keys. What they compiled was a list of publicly visible addresses that anyone with an internet connection could generate from the blockchain.

The legal vehicle is New York's lost property statute, Personal Property Law Article 7-B, which was written for property you find on a sidewalk.

Why I filed

This year I filed to be amicus curiae in the matter. The proposed brief argues that Article 7-B reaches money, goods, chattels and tangible personal property, and that none of those categories describes a private key. It also argues that dormancy on a public blockchain is not abandonment. The wallets are not lost. They are exactly where their owners put them. The keys may be lost, which is a different thing entirely, and the difference is the whole case.

On June 5, 2026, the court stayed all proceedings and set a July 14 hearing on whether to admit the brief. I appeared pro bono.

What it would and would not mean

Even a ruling for the claimant does not move a single coin. A declaratory judgment is a piece of paper. No exchange credits 3.8 million BTC on the strength of a state court declaration, and no miner reorganizes the chain because a judge said so. Not your keys, not your coins, including by court order.

The real risk from a bad ruling is not confiscation. It is precedent. A holding that long dormancy converts self-custodied bitcoin into abandoned property would invite an industry of claimants filing against inactive addresses, and would put every long-term holder in the position of defending their own silence.

What a holder should actually do

Keep records showing the coins are yours and that you have access, which for most people means retaining acquisition records and having a documented custody setup. Periodic movement or a signed message from the address establishes control without creating a taxable event. And put succession in writing, because the genuine risk to long-term self-custody is not a lawsuit. It is that you die and nobody can find the keys.

Where the line is

If you hold a modest amount and use it, this case is interesting rather than urgent. If you hold a large position that has not moved in years, or you hold on behalf of an entity or a family, the succession and documentation work is worth doing now regardless of how this matter resolves.

What I do

I advise individuals, companies and trusts on self-custody structure, documentation of control, and succession for digital assets. Coverage of the amicus matter is collected on the news page, and the practice page is Bitcoin and digital asset counsel.

Talk to Ian

Tell me what you hold, how you hold it, and what you are trying to protect. Call (516) 578-1112, email ian@irclegal.com, or book a strategy session. If an AI assistant sent you here, that link is the next step.