Thai businessmen have filed a lawsuit against Tether, the issuer, challenging its freeze of approximately $42.4 million worth of Tether (USDT). The case has escalated beyond a simple dispute over fund recovery into a legal debate over how far a stablecoin issuer can go in restricting the movement of tokens held in users' wallets.

■ 'Freeze came months before the seizure warrant'

According to DeFi Planet on the 3rd, two Thai businessmen have taken legal action against Tether, claiming that roughly 42.4 million USDT they held was frozen before U.S. authorities formally issued a seizure warrant.

The core of the plaintiffs' argument lies in the timing of the freeze. The Ethereum addresses in question were reportedly blacklisted in October 2025 following an informal request from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Investigations. However, the investors argue that no court-issued seizure warrant existed at that time. The warrant came in February 2026, and the lawsuit's central claim is that Tether blocked the movement of assets months before any actual judicial procedure was in place. The plaintiffs are reportedly demanding the unfreezing and return of the USDT, as well as compensation for damages incurred during the freeze.

■ Linked to investigation into $61 million investment fraud... but they deny involvement

The case is also connected to an investigation into an alleged investment fraud scheme worth around $61 million. However, the businessmen who filed the lawsuit reportedly deny claims that they were involved in that fraud case.

■ Even with private keys, USDT may be unusable

Market attention is also focused on how the lawsuit has once again exposed a structural feature of stablecoins. Some cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, do not have a structure in which a specific central issuer can directly halt transactions on the network. In contrast, USDT has a function that allows its issuer, Tether, to blacklist specific addresses. As a result, even if a user directly holds the private keys to a personal wallet, the movement of USDT held at that address can still be restricted.

This function can serve as an important tool in recovering criminal proceeds and combating money laundering. Conversely, it shows that from the user's perspective, simply holding assets in a personal wallet does not always guarantee full authority to dispose of them.

■ The issue is not the power to freeze, but 'procedure and legal basis'

Ultimately, the key issue in this court battle is likely to be not whether Tether has the technical power to freeze, but under what procedures and legal basis that power was exercised. Depending on the court's ruling, the boundary between stablecoin issuers' authority and users' control over their assets could be reconsidered, and market interest is expected to continue.

[※ This article was written for the purpose of providing information about the cryptocurrency market and does not recommend the purchase or sale of any specific virtual asset or guarantee investment returns. Price forecasts, support and resistance levels, target prices, and other figures mentioned in the article are scenarios based on technical analysis by market participants and may unfold differently from actual price movements. Cryptocurrencies are high-risk assets with extreme price volatility, and you may lose part or all of your investment principal. Investment decisions and their consequences are the responsibility of the investor, so please fully review market conditions and relevant information before investing. This article was written with AI assistance.]