$2.76 million frozen just like that, with no explanation for over a year. A company has taken the world’s largest stablecoin issuer to court 🦖
📣 盘面异动群里喊
The plaintiff is cross-border payments company Conduit Technology. It filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing Tether of freezing $2.76 million in USDT held in its treasury wallet on September 24, 2025. The reason still hasn’t been made clear, and the money had been used as the company’s operating account.
According to the complaint, the wallet was opened in May 2025 and processed more than $1.1 billion in transactions in just four months. After the freeze, the company couldn’t stay afloat: it laid off staff and closed its offices ⚠️
Tether’s stated basis was a 2024 investigation by Brazil’s Federal Police into a company called Onix. Onix did use Conduit’s platform, but Conduit says its wallet was created nearly a month after Onix’s last transaction and never held a single cent belonging to Onix. Brazilian police also confirmed that they had never flagged the wallet. The decision was actually made by Tether’s own T3 Financial Crime Unit, based on its own standards and its own judgment.
The complaint lists four claims: conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and computer fraud. The demand is simple: give the money back. An even more galling point is that while the tokens remain frozen, Tether continues to collect the interest on the U.S. Treasury securities backing them, while all the costs of the freeze fall on someone else 💰
This isn’t the first time. Just about a month ago, two Thai citizens also sued Tether over $42.4 million in frozen funds. Before that, hundreds of millions of USDT flagged as linked to illegal activity were frozen over time. The irony is that the same company is criticized for freezing funds too readily, while also being accused of not freezing enough. It can’t win either way.
My take: the real significance of this case isn’t the $2.76 million. It’s a question everyone will eventually have to face: Is the stablecoin in your wallet actually your money? ⚖️ The answer for now is that it is only yours if the issuer says so. The issuer can make its own judgment and enforce it without a court ruling first. By taking this case to court, Conduit is effectively forcing the courts to clarify this gray area for the first time.
If the court requires issuers to provide evidence and pay compensation, they may be more cautious about freezing tokens in the future, and people whose funds are frozen by mistake will have a path to seek recourse. But on the other hand, it could also slow down the recovery of illicit funds. That’s the double-edged nature of it.
Let’s talk in the comments: do you think stablecoin issuers should have this kind of one-click freezing power?
Every day, I bring you the latest on stablecoins and regulatory developments—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind the headlines 👀🚀
📣 盘面异动群里喊
The plaintiff is cross-border payments company Conduit Technology. It filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing Tether of freezing $2.76 million in USDT held in its treasury wallet on September 24, 2025. The reason still hasn’t been made clear, and the money had been used as the company’s operating account.
According to the complaint, the wallet was opened in May 2025 and processed more than $1.1 billion in transactions in just four months. After the freeze, the company couldn’t stay afloat: it laid off staff and closed its offices ⚠️
Tether’s stated basis was a 2024 investigation by Brazil’s Federal Police into a company called Onix. Onix did use Conduit’s platform, but Conduit says its wallet was created nearly a month after Onix’s last transaction and never held a single cent belonging to Onix. Brazilian police also confirmed that they had never flagged the wallet. The decision was actually made by Tether’s own T3 Financial Crime Unit, based on its own standards and its own judgment.
The complaint lists four claims: conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and computer fraud. The demand is simple: give the money back. An even more galling point is that while the tokens remain frozen, Tether continues to collect the interest on the U.S. Treasury securities backing them, while all the costs of the freeze fall on someone else 💰
This isn’t the first time. Just about a month ago, two Thai citizens also sued Tether over $42.4 million in frozen funds. Before that, hundreds of millions of USDT flagged as linked to illegal activity were frozen over time. The irony is that the same company is criticized for freezing funds too readily, while also being accused of not freezing enough. It can’t win either way.
My take: the real significance of this case isn’t the $2.76 million. It’s a question everyone will eventually have to face: Is the stablecoin in your wallet actually your money? ⚖️ The answer for now is that it is only yours if the issuer says so. The issuer can make its own judgment and enforce it without a court ruling first. By taking this case to court, Conduit is effectively forcing the courts to clarify this gray area for the first time.
If the court requires issuers to provide evidence and pay compensation, they may be more cautious about freezing tokens in the future, and people whose funds are frozen by mistake will have a path to seek recourse. But on the other hand, it could also slow down the recovery of illicit funds. That’s the double-edged nature of it.
Let’s talk in the comments: do you think stablecoin issuers should have this kind of one-click freezing power?
Every day, I bring you the latest on stablecoins and regulatory developments—not just what’s happening, but the logic and opportunities behind the headlines 👀🚀
