Skip to content
Blockchain Posts

on-chain

A 2011 Bitcoin wallet named in the Noah Doe lawsuit moves 75 BTC, sweeps the court notice

A wallet listed as defendant No. 3,419 in the $260B Noah Doe amended complaint moved 75 BTC on Nov 12 at block 975,608, spending the plaintiffs' tiny court-notice dust along with it.

by 4 min read
on-chainbitcoinregulation

A Bitcoin wallet listed as defendant No. 3,419 in the amended complaint of the Noah Doe dormant-wallet lawsuit moved its 2011 coins for the first time in fifteen years on November 12 — and spent, in the same transaction, the 546-sat payment the plaintiffs had used in May to serve legal notice on the address. The transfer was reported by CoinDesk; the transaction is confirmed on mempool.space at block 975,608, timestamp 22:46:48 UTC.

What happened

The sending address, 1313TARBFzoSbXQUL7yu32p9TjoBhUPx2M, held 75 BTC from 2011 plus four tiny UTXOs. All six inputs were swept in a single transaction totalling 75.00002187 BTC to a native-SegWit output at bc1q7upzc44p5v9wt5se40xt4grpwzalfe85zrcsd9 for 75.00000978 BTC, with a 1,209-sat fee (1.08 sat/vB). No change output was returned to the sender, consistent with a deliberate migration of the full balance rather than a spend.

The four dust UTXOs are the story. One of 546 sats arrived on May 22 in a transaction labelled "COURT-ORDERED LEGAL NOTICE," linking to the plaintiffs' notice page. A separate July notice from Salomon Brothers Strategic Advisors — the consultant the plaintiffs retained — was also swept in. Whoever still controls the private key read the notice and signed the spend.

The lawsuit

The Noah Doe case is filed in New York by a pseudonymous plaintiff and two Wyoming shell entities. It asks the court to declare ownership over Bitcoin in 39,069 addresses, approximately 3.8 million BTC, on the theory that New York's abandoned-property law lets a finder claim coins dormant for at least five years. Valuations across the complaint and related filings range from $260 billion (CoinDesk's current headline) to $285–$293 billion (earlier coverage and the amended complaint). The court earlier approved service by dust payment: tiny on-chain transfers whose metadata links to the legal papers, because unknown holders cannot be served by mail.

Addressing the plaintiffs' legal theory is now very hard, because at least two listed wallets have demonstrated that their keys are not lost:

  • June 2026 (other reporting): A separately listed 2011 wallet holding 35.55 BTC spent 15 BTC and returned the remainder as change.
  • November 12, 2026 (this post): Wallet 3,419 spends 75 BTC, sweeping the plaintiffs' service dust in the same transaction.

The plaintiffs priced the entire "found wallet" portfolio at under $10 in a hired-expert valuation, arguing recovery was uncertain. The on-chain record now contradicts that premise for at least two of them.

Numbers block

  • Transaction: b89f8a853a0ee3ac0f78fcafca3bcb91c2270ae9de5d23bfef47ff970f371633
  • Confirmed: block 975,608, 2026-11-12 22:46:48 UTC
  • From: 1313TARBFzoSbXQUL7yu32p9TjoBhUPx2M — six inputs, 1 BTC + 74 BTC + four dust (546/547/546/548 sats)
  • To: bc1q7upzc44p5v9wt5se40xt4grpwzalfe85zrcsd9 — one output, 75.00000978 BTC
  • Fee: 1,209 sats (1.08 sat/vB)
  • USD rough value at time of spend: ~$5M (CoinDesk)
  • Case claim size: 3.8M BTC across 39,069 addresses; headline value $260B–$293B depending on source
  • Prior spend by a listed wallet: 15 BTC from a 35.55 BTC address, June 2026

Valuations are reported here as reference points in the case record, not as price commentary.

Why it matters

The lawsuit's core factual assertion — that these wallets are abandoned and their holders uncontactable — is doing most of the legal work. Two signed transactions out of listed addresses in six months is a problem for that assertion, and both of the spending wallets responded directly to a service-by-dust mechanism the court itself authorised. The plaintiffs' amicus filings already face organised opposition from industry briefs this year; a live key re-signing after reading the notice is the kind of evidence a defence motion is built around.

What to watch

  1. Does the destination move the coins again. As of the mempool.space snapshot, the 75 BTC sit at bc1q7upzc44p5v9wt5se40xt4grpwzalfe85zrcsd9. Further hops — to an exchange deposit address, to a mixer, or into a split that diversifies self-custody — tell different stories.
  2. Whether the plaintiffs file a response. A fresh brief treating the spend as proof of ongoing ownership (rather than as a strike against the abandonment theory) would be a notable pivot.
  3. Other listed wallets. 39,069 addresses is a long list; each additional spend narrows the plaintiffs' pool without a court having to rule.
  4. The next hearing date. Earlier coverage put a hearing on Judge King's calendar around July 14. Any order touching the service-by-dust mechanism is the one to read in full.

Related stories