The Most Brazen Attempt to Steal Satoshi’s Bitcoin. $238 Billion at Stake

23 Jun, 2026
| Salome K

Two anonymous companies from Wyoming have filed a lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court. They seek to have 39,069 inactive bitcoin addresses, including Satoshi Nakamoto’s wallets, declared “abandoned property” and to obtain ownership rights to them [2][4]. The total value of the assets is approximately $238 billion** [2][4]. The lawsuit is valued at **$10 [4].

This is the most brazen attempt in the history of cryptocurrency. And it is doomed to fail.

Analytical material by the editorial board of the journal “Kafedra”

Disclaimer: This material is an analytical study based on open data, retrospective analysis of financial markets, and expert positions published in the journals “Kafedra” and SforNews. The material is not an investment recommendation, financial advisory opinion, or call to action. All conclusions are probabilistic in nature and reflect the author’s position of the editorial board. Any decisions regarding the disposal of assets should be made taking into account your own financial situation and, if necessary, after consultation with a professional financial advisor licensed in your jurisdiction. The editorial board is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of using the presented materials without proper independent risk assessment.

Part 1. “Abandoned Property”: How the Law on Lost Suitcases Is Being Applied to Mathematics

The lawsuit was filed under the pseudonym “Noah Doe” by two Wyoming LLCs with the telling names ABC Company and XYZ Company [2]. Their legal theory relies on Article 7-B of the New York Personal Property Law — the abandoned property law, passed in 1958, roughly half a century before the advent of Bitcoin [4].

The plaintiffs claim that wallets unused for five to six years meet the threshold for being considered abandoned [2]. They valued each of the 39,069 addresses at **less than $10** to comply with procedural requirements and minimize litigation costs [4]. Yet the actual value of the assets is $238 billion [2][4].

But Bitcoin is not a suitcase left in a taxi. It is an entry in a global distributed ledger, access to which is controlled by a private key. And a law written for tangible physical objects cannot be applied to mathematical reality.

Part 2. The Lawyer Who Said “No”

On May 29, 2026, Bitcoin attorney Ian R. Cohen filed an amicus curiae brief [4]. His argumentsare devastating:

• New York’s abandoned property law does not apply to self-custodied Bitcoins [4][5].

• A “dormant” status is not the same as “abandoned” — a person can hold savings for decades, and that does not make them ownerless [5].

• The court has no jurisdiction over private keys [5].

Cohen emphasized the key point: “Control over the private key is ownership” [4]. Without control over the private key, it is impossible to assert rights to the asset.

On June 4, Judge Katie King issued a stay of proceedings, blocking the plaintiffs’ ability to obtain a default judgment [5]. On June 18, plaintiffs’ attorney David Lin attempted to vacate the stay. On June 19, Cohen filed a decisive response: he noted that the 39,069 addresses themselves, as “defendants,” cannot respond, so the court must rely on third-party opinions. He also questioned the plaintiffs’ attempt to bypass procedural barriers by filing a lawsuit with a nominal value of $10 [5].

Part 3. The Blockchain Spoke for Itself

While the lawyers argued, the blockchain spoke for itself.

52 addresses from those listed in the lawsuit moved 34,335 BTC — approximately $2.48 billion [6]. 29 of those addresses made transactions after they had been officially notified in connection with the case [6]. Addresses that had been declared “abandoned” suddenly “came to life.”

Alex Thorn, Head of Research at Galaxy Digital, confirmed: these transactions indicate that the addresses are controlled via private keys, and therefore are not abandoned [3][6]. Moving coins are difficult to classify as “lost.”

The hearing is scheduled for July 14, 2026 [5]. But even if the court somehow sides with the plaintiffs — mathematics will remain on its side. As long as a private key exists, its owner exists.

Part 4. The Hunt for the Ghost

Alongside the legal farce, attempts to identify Satoshi continue. Three major investigations in a year and a half — and all three have failed.

October 2024. The HBO documentary “Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery” pointed to Canadian Bitcoin core developer Peter Todd. Todd immediately rejected the claim, calling it “absurd” [7].

April 2026. The New York Times published an investigation by John Carrere, who, after nearly a year of research, concluded that Satoshi was British cryptographer and Blockstream CEO Adam Back. Back denied it, stating that similarities between cypherpunks are a product of a shared cultural environment, not evidence of a single identity [7][8].

Two weeks later. An independent documentary film put forward the hypothesis that Satoshi was not one person but two: Hal Finney (programmer) and Len Sassaman (author of the White Paper). Both are dead [7].

No cryptographic evidence has ever emerged [7]. The only irrefutable proof in the crypto community is the movement of coins from Satoshi’s wallets. But he remains silent.

Part 5. Bitcoin Is Mathematics

In our previous research, we have argued that the old world is dead. US national debt has reached $39.2 trillion. The dollar’s share in global reserves has fallen to 56.3%. Central banks are buying gold at record rates — more than 1,000 tonnes per year.

A two-circuit economy is the only way to preserve sovereignty. The internal circuit is for domestic settlements, the external circuit is for international trade. Gold and Bitcoin become bridges between these circuits. Gold — as a historical anchor. Bitcoin — as a mathematical one.

Mining in Russia is not a “waste of energy,” as critics like to say. It is production — converting surplus electricity that cannot be transmitted or stored into a commodity that can be stored, transmitted, and exchanged around the world. Russia ranks second in the world in terms of Bitcoin hash rate share — from 13% to 17% depending on the methodology. The US and Russia together control 53.9% of the global hash rate [9].

Satoshi Nakamoto proves his authorship through mathematics. And the profane world is trying to resist that mathematics.

This phrase describes the fundamental conflict between mathematical reality (where truth is proven by cryptography) and legal reality (where truth is established by courts and laws). Satoshi, the creator of Bitcoin, does not need courts to confirm his authorship. His authorship is mathematically proven — by possession of the private keys to the first blocks he mined. However, the profane world, unable to operate with the categories of mathematics, tries to subordinate Bitcoin to its laws through lawsuits, journalistic investigations, and legislative initiatives.

How Satoshi Proves Authorship Through Mathematics

The only indisputable proof of Satoshi’s identity in the crypto community is a cryptographic signature — a demonstration of control over the private keys associated with Bitcoin’s early activity, especially the 2009 blocks [7].

In the Bitcoin world, a rigid standard applies: “Control over the private key is ownership” [4]. Without control over the private key, it is impossible to claim rights to the asset. Anyone who holds the private key to the genesis block or Satoshi’s early wallets can at any moment sign a message and thereby mathematically irrefutably prove their authorship.

That is precisely why all attempts to identify Satoshi through journalistic investigations are doomed to fail. HBO, The New York Times, and independent documentarians can build theories, but no cryptographic evidence has ever appeared [7].

In the absence of cryptographic proof, the profane world tries to impose its own rules.

Conclusion: Mathematics Does Not Know the Word “Abandoned”

The “abandoned property” lawsuit is an attempt by the legal system to subordinate mathematical reality to itself. But mathematics does not know the word “abandoned.” As long as a private key exists — its owner exists. No court can overturn that fact.

$10 vs. $238 billion. A 1958 law vs. a 2009 blockchain. Legal fiction vs. mathematical truth.

Who will win — time will tell. But mathematics does not depend on the decisions of judges.

What This Means for Readers of “Kafedra” and SforNews

The case surrounding Satoshi’s wallets is not just a legal curiosity. It is a stress test for the entire digital asset system. If the court declares the addresses “abandoned,” it will set a precedent that could be used against any long-term holder. This is a fundamental challenge to the very idea of selfcustodied digital assets. But if the court rejects the plaintiffs’ claims, it will establish a precedent protecting the right to hold digital assets without time limits.

For readers, this means that:

• Bitcoin remains the only decentralised asset that cannot be blocked or confiscated under self-custody. A hardware wallet is not just a “technical detail” — it is the only protection against encroachment by any state or corporation.

• Bitcoin’s volatility is a temporary phenomenon linked to the transition period and speculative practices. The long-term trend is recognition of Bitcoin as digital gold and a store of value.

• The old world is dead. National debt, budget deficits, uncontrolled issuance — all of this makes the dollar and other fiat currencies instruments of savings erosion. Bitcoin is the only mathematically backed alternative.

• A new accounting system must include mechanisms for fair distribution of access to avoid reproducing old imbalances. At “Kafedra” and SforNews, we consistently analyse these processes in our series of articles on the two-circuit economy, mining, and the mathematical nature of Bitcoin.

Your Next Steps

• Review your savings structure. Move large sums out of bank accounts — they are not protected from inflation and potential restrictions.

• Get a hardware wallet for Bitcoin. It is not difficult, but it requires attention. In a climate where courts are trying to declare digital assets “abandoned,” self-custody becomes the only real defence.

• Learn about tokenisation mechanisms — they could become your tool in the new system. In our upcoming materials, we will explain how tokenisation of time, attention, and intellectual labour capitalises what currently remains outside the economy.

• Subscribe to “Kafedra” and SforNews. Here we provide not forecasts, but tools for action. Mathematics does not know the word “abandoned.” Now you know it too.

Sources

[1] KuCoin — “Legal battle over ownership of Satoshi-linked Bitcoin enters new phase,” June 20, 2026.

[2] KuCoin — “New York lawsuit claims ownership of 3.8 million Bitcoin, including Satoshi addresses,” June 1, 2026.

[3] KuCoin — “Head of Galaxy Digital Research Reveals Progress in Satoshi Nakamoto Bitcoin Lawsuit,” June 20, 2026.

[4] CoinMarketCap — “Ian Cohen battles $238B Bitcoin grab targeting Satoshi wallets,” June 20, 2026.

[5] CoinMarketCap — “Lawsuit Trying To Seize Satoshi’s Bitcoin Hit a Major Wall,” June 22, 2026.

[6] KuCoin — “$2.48B BTC Transfers Challenge ‘Lost’ Wallets in Satoshi Lawsuit,” June 21, 2026.

[7] KuCoin — “Three investigations into Satoshi Nakamoto’s identity point to Todd, Back, Sassaman, and Finney,” May 31, 2026.

[8] Yahoo Finance — “Adam Back Calls ‘Finding Satoshi’ Documentary’s Finney-Sassaman Theory ‘Odd’,” April 23, 2026.

[9] Hashrate Index — “Global Hashrate Heatmap Update: Q1 2026,” January 12, 2026.

[10] Kommersant — “Crypto Stands Still,” May 5, 2026.

Analytical material prepared by the editorial board of the journal “Kafedra” and SforNews. All conclusions are based on open data and do not constitute investment advice.