A Bitcoin address named in a New York dormant-wallet lawsuit transferred 40 BTC worth approximately $3.1 million on September 3, 2026, after remaining inactive since November 5, 2011. According to Galaxy Research, the transaction was confirmed in Bitcoin block 965,330 and identified the sending address as 'Noah Doe #38097'. The transfer demonstrates control of private keys but does not establish the wallet's legal ownership or reveal the identity of the person moving the Bitcoin.
Bitcoin was trading near $3 when the wallet received its coins in November 2011, and Galaxy calculated that the market value had increased by approximately 2,571,899% by the time of the latest transfer. As reported by Galaxy Research, the transfer occurred when Bitcoin was trading near $81,100 on September 4, up about 4.3% over 24 hours. However, no evidence linked the broader market increase directly to the 40 BTC transaction or the New York case.
The case, ABC Company, XYZ Company and Noah Doe v. John Does 1–39,069, was filed in New York County Supreme Court under Index No. 153119/2026, seeking legal title to Bitcoin associated with 39,069 addresses. According to the complaint, those addresses held an estimated 3.7 million to 3.8 million BTC when researchers examined the complaint, with their combined dollar value estimated at approximately $293 billion. The plaintiffs claim the addresses qualify as abandoned property under Article 7-B of New York's Personal Property Law.
The activity from a listed address conflicts with the plaintiffs' assertion that nobody controls its private key, as reported by Galaxy Research. In July, the plaintiffs had dropped 44 addresses that became active after the case began, showing that on-chain activity can narrow the addresses covered by the complaint. Attorney Ian Cohen and the Digital Chamber have challenged the plaintiffs' theory, arguing that treating inactivity as abandonment could create uncertainty for people who deliberately hold Bitcoin in self-custody for extended periods. A New York judge previously paused the proceedings, preventing the plaintiffs from immediately obtaining a default judgment.
