Last updated on February 24th, 2025 at 06:02 am
James Howells, a 39-year-old man from Newport, Wales, is at the center of a decade-long legal saga regarding his attempt to recover a fortune in Bitcoin. In 2013, Howells accidentally discarded a hard drive containing over 8,000 Bitcoin (valued at around 600 million pounds, or nearly $750 million today) while cleaning out his home. The hard drive, which contained the private keys to the Bitcoin, was thrown away at a local landfill.
Since then, Howells had been frantically trying to win back his misplaced cryptocurrency by suggesting a mega-exhumation of the site. His proposed plan was totally funding the process himself and even offering 25% of Bitcoin recovered to Newport City Council if they agreed with him.
Presentation to the Council:
Howells tried to collaborate with the Newport City Council. However, his efforts were rebuffed time and again. He proposed excavating the landfill, but the council rejected it. After several attempts to reach out to the officials, he had no other option but to take the matter to court in 2023. He filed a case seeking leave from the court to dig up the landfill.
Even with the numerous overtures he made, Howells is adamant that he was not greedy but only looking to recover what he feels rightfully belongs to him. He has time and again stated that the offer to share 25% of the Bitcoin was a very fair and generous offer that would benefit both parties, himself and the local authorities.
The Court Ruling
On January 11, 2025, Circuit Commercial Judge for Wales, Judge Keyser, threw out Howells’s lawsuit. By dismissing it, the judge brought an end to his work on regaining the allegedly lost Bitcoin. According to the ruling from Judge Keyser, Howells “had no reasonable grounds” for bringing the claim and that there was “no realistic prospect” if the case were to be taken to trial.
Keyser explained that there was no valid evidence to keep the case, and the court ruled that ownership of the hard drive lay in the hands of the Newport City Council. That meant Howells had no entitlement to the said hard drive. The judge stated that the council’s defense would be able to fully dismiss the case as the reason why there was no substantial cause for letting the matter be brought before a trial.
It was a big blow to Howells, and he spoke out emotionally on the media that the verdict had been a “kick in the teeth” since the case had been dismissed at the earliest stage of the proceedings and he did not get an opportunity to plead his full argument.
He claimed he wanted the chance to defend himself at trial so he could make them understand his motive. In fact, Howells was working diligently since years on an approach towards Newport City Council with full intention, stating he had not acted from the motives of gaining a handsome profit but had hoped for getting his Bitcoins through this beneficial mutual process.
“I’ve tried every possible way to communicate with the council,” Howells said. “No one in a position of power is willing to have a proper conversation with me about this matter.”
The Council’s Position
According to the Newport City Council, which claims that both the hard drive and any existing Bitcoins are the council’s properties since the council owns the property of the landfill where the hard drive was dumped. They claim the hard drive had belonged to Howells, but due to his failed claim to Bitcoins, they took ownership of that property.
Howells has repeatedly suggested that the council’s refusal to cooperate stems from a lack of interest in working with him to recover the Bitcoin. He has contended that, by offering 25% of the recovered Bitcoin, he was not seeking an unjustified financial gain but rather a fair arrangement to help fund the costly excavation project.
Future Implications
As the case has been dismissed, Howells is facing an uphill battle in his effort to recover the lost Bitcoin. It is not clear if he can appeal the judgment, or resort to other avenues of seeking redress through the legal system. The case serves as a stark reminder of the risks associated with failing to secure assets properly in electronic form, and the complexities of the legal permutations that arise when such assets are lost or disposed by mistake.
The larger implications of Howells‘ case may also extend to future litigation over the ownership of cryptocurrencies, especially in situations where digital assets are lost, stolen, or accidentally discarded.
For now, Howells seems to have run out of options in recovering the Bitcoin, with little to show for his 12-year quest to reclaim his fortune. The ruling by the judge underscores the difficulties in recovering lost digital assets and serves as a cautionary tale for cryptocurrency holders about the importance of safeguarding their assets.
