Attorney Ian R. Cohen filed a new rebuttal in court opposing efforts to revive a lawsuit seeking control of approximately 3.8 million Bitcoins 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 holding an estimated $238 billion.
- Cohen argues that dormant self-custodial Bitcoin is not considered abandoned property under New York law.
- Galaxy researchers discovered recent activity in dozens of targeted wallets, disputing claims that the coins were abandoned.
According to a June 20
The lawsuit was brought by anonymous plaintiffs identified as Company ABC, Company XYZ and Noah Doe, who argue that the wallets should be treated as abandoned property under New York law.
Earlier this month, Judge Kathy King of New York granted a stay after Cohen requested permission to participate in the case as an amicus attorney. A hearing on 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 case and was not simply granted at his request. According to the filing, the court exercised its authority under New York procedural law in staying the proceedings.
Cohen says dormant wallets are not considered abandoned property
At the center of the dispute is the plaintiffs’ contention that long-inactive Bitcoin wallets can be classified as abandoned assets and transferred by court order. Court documents cited by crypto.news previously showed that the plaintiffs claim that the original owners can no longer access the funds due to an alleged technical defect.
Among the addresses listed in the lawsuit are wallets associated with Satoshi Nakamoto and the “1Feex” address, which blockchain researchers and crypto investigators linked to Bitcoin stolen in the Mt. Gox breach.
Cohen has repeatedly challenged the legal basis of the case. In previous statements, he has argued that New York’s lost property laws do not apply to self-custodial Bitcoin, that inactivity alone is not enough to establish abandonment, and that private keys are not within the jurisdiction of New York courts.
His latest filing also challenges the practicality of the trial. According to Cohen, the defendants are not identifiable individuals but 39,069 pseudonymous Bitcoin addresses, making it unlikely that the parties involved will appear in court to defend their interests.
The filing argues that lifting the stay could allow plaintiffs to obtain default judgment against the wallet addresses without significant opposition, which could affect ownership rights tied to billions of dollars of Bitcoin.
Recent Blockchain Activity Challenges Abandonment Claims
Elsewhere in the filing, Cohen challenged 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 outgoing transactions, indicating that a person with access to the associated private keys had transferred funds. Cohen cited these transactions as evidence that at least some wallet owners remain 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 moved 12,302 BTC after receiving notice of the lawsuit.
Criticism of the affair has also emerged elsewhere in the crypto industry. Last month, Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz questioned how a New York court could assert authority over Bitcoin wallets whose owners are unknown and scattered 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 lead people to lose control of their crypto assets.
The debate even drew comparisons to future discussions over dormant Bitcoin holdings. Recently, Binance founder Changpeng Zhao suggested that wallets linked to inactive owners, including those suspected of belonging to Satoshi, could one day be frozen after a transition to quantum-resistant cryptography if their holders fail to move funds during a designated migration period.
Zhao said such a change would require community consensus and would not be decided by a single individual.
