Attorney Ian R. Cohen has filed a new court rebuttal opposing efforts to revive a lawsuit seeking control of approximately 3.8 million Bitcoin worth an estimated $238 billion, including wallets linked to Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto.
Summary
- Ian Cohen has opposed efforts to revive a lawsuit targeting 39,069 Bitcoin wallets worth an estimated $238 billion.
- Cohen maintains that dormant, self-custodied Bitcoin does not qualify as abandoned property under New York law.
- Galaxy researchers found recent activity in dozens of specific wallets, challenging claims that the coins were abandoned.
According to a June 20
The lawsuit was filed by anonymous plaintiffs identified as ABC Company, XYZ Company and Noah Doe, who argue that the wallets should be treated as abandoned property under New York law.
Earlier this month, New York Judge Kathy King granted a stay after Cohen requested permission to participate in the case as an amicus attorney. A hearing related to the amicus request is scheduled for July 14.
Cohen argued in his latest filing that the stay was issued by the court itself after reviewing the matter and was not granted simply at his request. According to the record, the court exercised its authority under New York procedural law when it stopped the proceedings.
Cohen says inactive wallets do not qualify as abandoned property
At the center of the dispute is the plaintiffs’ claim that long-dormant Bitcoin wallets can be classified as abandoned assets and transferred by court order. Court documents previously cited by crypto.news presented that the plaintiffs maintain that the original owners can no longer access the funds due to an alleged technical failure.
Among the addresses listed in the lawsuit are wallets associated with Satoshi Nakamoto and the “1Feex” address, which blockchain and crypto researchers have linked to Bitcoin stolen during the Mt. Gox breach.
Cohen has repeatedly questioned the legal basis of the case. In previous statements, he argued that New York’s lost property laws do not apply to Bitcoin in self-custody, that inactivity alone does not establish abandonment, and that private keys fall outside the jurisdiction of New York courts.
His latest filing also questions the viability of the lawsuit. According to Cohen, the defendants are not identifiable individuals but 39,069 pseudonymous Bitcoin addresses, making it unlikely that the affected parties will appear in court to defend their interests.
The filing argues that lifting the stay could allow plaintiffs to obtain a default judgment against the wallet addresses without significant opposition, which could affect property rights tied to billions of dollars in Bitcoin.
Recent Blockchain Activity Challenges Claims of Abandonment
Elsewhere in the presentation, Cohen questioned the factual basis of the abandonment argument by pointing to evidence that some of the targeted wallets have recently been active on-chain.
According to the filing, the complaint itself identified addresses that recorded outbound transactions, indicating that someone with access to the associated private keys had moved funds. Cohen cited those transactions as evidence that at least some wallet owners are still able to control their Bitcoin.
Galaxy researchers came to a similar conclusion. Thorn said Galaxy identified 52 named addresses that collectively moved 34,335 BTC, while 29 of those addresses transferred 12,302 BTC after receiving notice of the lawsuit.
Criticism of the case has also emerged elsewhere in the crypto industry. Last month, Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz questioned how a New York court could assert its authority over Bitcoin wallets whose owners are unknown and dispersed across a decentralized network.
According to Schwartz, the lawsuit’s jurisdictional argument was one of its most serious weaknesses, and he warned that the legal theory could ultimately cause people to lose control of their crypto assets.
The debate has even drawn comparisons to future discussions about dormant Bitcoin holdings. Recently, Binance founder Changpeng Zhao suggested that wallets linked to inactive owners, including those believed to belong to Satoshi, could one day be frozen after a transition to quantum-resistant crypto if their holders do not move funds within a designated migration period.
Zhao said any such change would require community consensus and would not be decided by a single individual.
