Two Thai businessmen have filed suit against Tether in federal court in New York over roughly $42.4 million in frozen USDT, arguing the stablecoin issuer blocked their wallets months before any court-authorized seizure existed.

According to the complaint, Tether blacklisted 10 Ethereum addresses on October 30, 2025 after what the plaintiffs describe as an informal request from Homeland Security Investigations. The suit says no warrant, court order, or prior notice had been issued at that point, and that a federal magistrate judge in North Carolina did not sign a seizure warrant until February 19, 2026.

What the complaint alleges

The filing says the frozen tokens were spread across 10 Ethereum addresses. Nine of those addresses allegedly belonged to Nutthawat Rukthammachalern, while one allegedly belonged to Natthawat Kasamvilas.

The plaintiffs claim Tether acted on an informal government request rather than a formal legal order. In their telling, the company imposed the freeze before any judicial process had authorized a seizure, making the blacklist action unlawful from the outset.

Timeline at the center of the case

The dispute turns on the gap between the wallet freeze and the later court action. The complaint says Tether blacklisted the addresses on October 30, 2025, while the seizure warrant was signed nearly four months later, on February 19, 2026.

The lawsuit argues that the later-issued warrant cannot retroactively validate the earlier freeze. That timing is central to the plaintiffs' effort to distinguish Tether's action from a court-supervised asset seizure.

How the plaintiffs frame Tether's role

In the complaint, Tether is presented as a private company that acted independently rather than as an arm of the government carrying out an existing court order. That characterization appears designed to challenge the legitimacy of the freeze and to question whether the company had legal authority to immobilize the tokens when it did.

The case does not, based on the source report, resolve whether government agencies later pursued forfeiture or other claims to the assets. Instead, the lawsuit focuses on the period before any signed warrant existed and on the company decision to blacklist the addresses during that window.

Relief sought and next step

The plaintiffs are asking the court for a ruling that the freeze was unlawful. They also want an order preventing any destruction of the tokens before a final forfeiture decision, according to the complaint.

In addition, the suit seeks damages, including any income the plaintiffs say Tether earned while the USDT remained frozen. The next confirmed step is the court's handling of those requests in the New York federal case, where the legality of the freeze and the timing of the later warrant are likely to be central issues.

Source: Cryptopolitan