DOJ Seeks $84.2M From Tether-Linked Bank Capstone, EQIBank

Federal prosecutors want to keep $84.2 million in cash and cryptocurrency they say moved through a Montana payments firm and a Caribbean bank connected to Tether's stablecoin operations. The civil forfeiture complaint targets Capstone Ltd., which the Department of Justice alleges processed wires for Tether and Bitfinex customers without the money-transmitter license the law requires.

What the Justice Department is alleging

The Department of Justice filed a civil forfeiture complaint on July 15 targeting $84.2 million in accounts tied to Capstone Ltd., a payments firm prosecutors say moved money for Tether without the required license. The complaint was filed in the Eastern District of California before Judge Dale A. Drozd. According to the filing, Capstone allegedly operated as an unlicensed money transmitter in at least six states while presenting itself to banks as an ordinary technology services company. The U.S. government alleges Capstone misrepresented the nature of its business to banks while using their accounts to process payments for third parties. Behind Capstone sits EQIBank, a Dominica-licensed digital bank that prosecutors say directed how the processor moved money, and Justice Department officials alleged that the business was unlicensed and had made payments to "hundreds of individuals and entities" on behalf of Tether and Bitfinex, according to the Financial Times.

It matters that this is a civil forfeiture complaint rather than a criminal indictment: the allegations have not been finally adjudicated, and the case surfaced publicly on September 24 and 25, and it deserves careful reading because it touches on Tether, the company behind the world's largest stablecoin, without Tether itself facing any charges of wrongdoing. On September 14, 2026, prosecutors executed seizures totaling approximately $84.2 million, according to the forfeiture filing.

Where the frozen money actually sits

The bulk of the money, $79.11 million, sat in a Wells Fargo Securities account; smaller sums were held at JPMorgan Chase and in two USDT wallets. Another $2.06 million sat at JPMorgan Chase, $1.86 million in a separate Wells Fargo account, and just over $1.1 million was split across two wallets holding USDT, Tether's stablecoin. Tether confirmed EQIBank, the Dominica-based bank behind Capstone, processed its wire transfers, but said it had "no knowledge" of the conduct under investigation and put its exposure at less than 0.034% of group assets.

Key figures

Two dollar figures that are easy to confuse

Readers scanning multiple outlets will see both an $84.2 million figure and an $89 million figure attached to this case, and they are not the same claim. The Caribbean bank has separately sought the return of approximately $89 million that it says U.S. authorities seized, telling the court that the property represented around 80% of its monetary holdings. One outlet's reporting made the distinction explicit: the $89 million and $84.2 million figures are not two estimates of the same forfeiture. The former represents the broader amount EQIBank says was seized, while the latter concerns assets specifically targeted in the government's forfeiture complaint. EQIBank has warned that prolonged loss of access to the funds could ultimately threaten its continued operation.

Tether's position is narrower on paper. Tether confirmed it was a customer of EQIBank, the bank the Justice Department alleged directed the payments company, Capstone, to send and receive money, but the amount held at the bank represented 0.034% of the group's total assets. Applying that percentage to the $187.75 billion in assets Tether reported puts the dollar exposure at well under $65 million -- a calculation based on Tether's own stated percentage rather than a figure any source has independently confirmed as a fixed dollar amount. That is a customer-relationship exposure tied to Tether's banking arrangements, not a claim on Capstone's specific frozen accounts, and Tether has not been charged with wrongdoing in the complaint.

What is still unresolved

Several questions remain open based on the reporting reviewed. The roughly two-month gap between the July 15 filing date and the case becoming public in late September has not been explained by any source found; it may reflect standard forfeiture sealing procedure, but no report specifies why. EQIBank's own request for the return of its funds is a separate legal proceeding from the DOJ's forfeiture complaint, and its outcome has not been reported. Because this is a civil forfeiture rather than a criminal prosecution, the standard of proof and available defenses differ from a criminal case, and the complaint being filed does not by itself establish that Capstone, EQIBank, Tether or Bitfinex engaged in wrongdoing. Readers should treat the claims in the complaint as government allegations, not adjudicated facts, unless and until a court rules or the parties reach a settlement.