Exchange Ranking
Top Exchanges
24h Volume Ranking
Popularity Ranking
Exchange BTC Balance
Proof of Reserves
Decentralized Exchanges
Funding Rate
Funding Heatmap
Liquidation Data
Max Pain
Long/Short Ratio
Whale L/S Ratio
Binance/Okex/Huobi L/S
Bitfinex Margin L/S
ETF Tracker
Solana ETF
XRP ETF
Hong Kong ETF
Bitcoin Treasuries
Crypto Reversal
Ethereum Reserves
HyperLiquid Wallet Analysis
Hyperliquid Whale Watch
Large Transactions
On-chain Movement
Bitcoin ROI
Stablecoin Market Cap
Options Analysis
News
Articles
Economic Calendar
Features
Wallet
Contract Calculator
Security
Collections
Watchlist
FollowingTLDR: The freezing order precedes the court order, and the lawsuit alleges that
two Thai businessmen sued Tether Company in connection with the freezing of US$42.4 million in USDT stablecoins. The case has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. According to lawyer Ariel Givner, the plaintiff said Tether froze his wallet without a search warrant. The lawsuit focuses on an informal request filed by the U.S. Homeland Security Investigation (HSI) in October 2025. It took several months for the court to issue the seizure order, raising questions that needed to be answered in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges that the freeze occurred before the court order
The plaintiffs Nutthawat Rukthammachalern and Natthawat Kasamvilas accuse Tether of blacklisting their Ethereum addresses on October 30, 2025. Givner wrote that the two businessmen said Tether froze its assets "after receiving an informal request from HSI agents." According to the complaint, the total amount frozen was USDT 42,417,785.62. The complaint states that the freezing was carried out without a search warrant, court order or any advance notice.
Givner explained that the HSI Raleigh office "launched an investigation based on a victim's reporting lead." The clue described marriage and investment fraud carried out through fake trading platforms. She wrote that funds were allegedly layered through multiple wallets to conceal their origin, and the process was described as "accumulation, stratification, integration." One wallet address mentioned in the case was 0xf3bF.A3eB and held approximately US$26.1 million in USDT. Givner pointed out that the wallet had been marked as a fund collection point before government documents were issued. "The court documents arrived later," she wrote, long after Tether took the blacklist action.
Finally, on February 19, 2026, the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina issued a seizure order (No. 5:26-MJ-1267-JG) requiring Tether to destroy the frozen USDT. The directive also requires the reissuance of equivalent tokens into government-controlled wallets.
Plaintiff challenges Tether's right to dispose of frozen tokens
The complaint does not contest potential criminal charges related to the case. Five days after the seizure order was issued, the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, together with HSI, announced that $61 million in USDT had been seized. According to Givner, officials said the funds were "traced to addresses associated with suspected proceeds of laundering." Instead, the lawsuit alleges that Tether froze the assets of secondary market holders without obtaining court authorization. Givner succinctly summarized the focus of the controversy: Tether "locked in secondary market holders first" and "continued to earn Treasury yields" throughout the freeze period. The plaintiffs claimed they were unable to access their funds during the process.
According to the complaint, the main appeal includes requesting the court to declare the freezing and destruction null and void. Other charges relate to embezzlement of property, infringement of movable property and unjust enrichment arising from the proceeds of reserves. The plaintiffs also sought an injunction to remove the wallets from Tether's blacklist. Givner summarized the core controversy as "whether stablecoin issuers can freeze US$42 million in assets based solely on informal government requests" while continuing to charge interest.
The remedies requested include lifting the freeze and seeking compensation if the tokens have been destroyed. The plaintiff also seeks punitive damages, but the case is still in the filing stage and no ruling has yet been reached.
