Latest Developments in the Case of "Legal Ownership Claims over Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin": Still Under Trial, Lawyers Urge to Avoid Default Judgments

Odaily Planet Daily News: Galaxy Digital Head of Research Alex Thorn has released the latest developments in the lawsuit "attempting to claim legal ownership of Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin." The case was filed by two anonymous Wyoming companies, seeking to have a court declare approximately 39,069 Bitcoin addresses, which have been dormant for a long time, as "abandoned property," thereby obtaining legal title to the associated BTC. The assets involved are reportedly valued at over $200 billion, including some wallets believed to be from the "Satoshi Nakamoto era":

1. On May 29, Bitcoin lawyer Ian R. Cohen filed an amicus brief. His core arguments include: New York's lost property law does not apply to self-custodied Bitcoin; "dormancy" does not equal "abandonment"; and the court lacks jurisdiction over private keys. He emphasized that in the Bitcoin system, "control of the private key constitutes ownership," and without the ability to control the private key, one cannot claim the asset.

2. On June 4, Judge Kathy King granted Cohen's request for a hearing and issued a stay on the entire case, freezing further proceedings pending the formal trial. This move effectively prevented the plaintiffs from obtaining a ruling through a path of "no response → default judgment."

3. On June 18, the plaintiff's lawyer, David Lin, filed a motion to dissolve or narrow the stay. He argued that non-parties should not affect the progress of the case and that if the defendants did not appear, an amicus brief would be unnecessary.

4. On June 19, Cohen filed a strong rebuttal, stating that the stay was proactively issued by the court itself; "no response" is precisely the structural problem of this case. The 39,069 addresses, acting as "defendants," cannot respond on their own, so the court must rely on third-party opinions to avoid a one-sided judgment. He further questioned the plaintiffs for using a minimal $10 claim amount to circumvent procedural thresholds while attempting to advance ownership determinations potentially involving hundreds of billions of dollars in Bitcoin. He also emphasized that on-chain data shows some addresses "marked as dormant" were still transacting during the case. At least 52 addresses moved approximately 34,335 BTC (about $2.48 billion) during this period, with 29 addresses moving around 12,302 BTC (about $0.9 billion) even after the "service of process," thereby undermining the core premise of "abandoned assets."

Alex Thorn's analysis suggests the case is still under trial. If a default judgment occurs, it could have a profound impact on the legal definition of self-custodied Bitcoin assets and could trigger a long-term controversy over whether dormant addresses are equivalent to unowned property.