Lawyer Flags Tether Case as Clear Unjust Enrichment Example

TheCryptoTimes2025-10-16 tarihinde yayınlandı2025-10-16 tarihinde güncellendi

A legal dispute against Tether in the Southern District of New York has drawn major attention across the crypto community. Riverstone Consultancy filed a lawsuit claiming that Tether froze $44.72 million worth of USDT after getting an informal request from Bulgarian police. The case raises concerns about how stablecoin companies manage frozen funds and deal with unofficial requests from authorities.

Lawyer Bill Morgan called the case “an obvious example of unjust enrichment,” comparing it to exchanges that fail to pass airdrops to users. The comment came after crypto analyst Jacob King shared details of the lawsuit, which accused Tether of profiting from frozen reserves while denying access to Riverstone’s funds.

Allegations against Tether

The complaint alleges that Tether violated international legal protocols by freezing assets based on a local police request without a formal due process. Riverstone claimed Tether froze eight wallets on April 4 and failed to provide legal justification for the action. The company said Tether directed them to contact Bulgarian authorities, who never responded.

Besides, Riverstone accused Tether of falsely marketing USDT as a liquid and reliable stablecoin while exercising centralized control. The firm alleged that Tether’s ability to freeze wallets contradicts its claim of offering unrestricted and transparent transactions. 

Moreover, the lawsuit points to three main accusations: breach of trust, unfair profit, and taking control of funds without permission. Each one centers on claims that Tether made money while blocking Riverstone from using its own assets.

Industry reaction and wider implications

Consensys lawyer Bill Hughes said the issue raises bigger questions about how stablecoins deal with law enforcement. He explained that banks must follow clear legal steps before freezing anyone’s money, but crypto companies don’t have such rules. As a result, users can lose access to their funds without warning or proper protection.

Blockchain investigator ZachXBT later said the wallets in question were tied to Ponzi schemes like BETL and Pegasus Ride. He explained that the money’s movement on the blockchain clearly showed suspicious activity, adding, “There’s no way you ‘accidentally’ associate $44.7M with tainted addresses onchain.”

Additionally, the Blockchain Recovery Investment Consortium (BRIC) said that Tether paid $299.5 million to help settle the Celsius bankruptcy case. The move has drawn even more attention to how Tether manages its money and handles big financial disputes.


The case shows it’s becoming difficult to balance law enforcement demands with users’ rights in crypto. It also shows why the industry needs clear global rules to stop unfair fund freezes and protect honest users.

Also Read: Stablecoins Could be a Risk to Global Finance: EU Chief


Mobile Only Image

İlgili Okumalar

The Truth About Global Payments, Exposed by Airwallex

Airwallex's founder, Jack Zhang, outlines the three primary paths in the global payments industry and explains why the company chooses the most demanding one: building its own global financial infrastructure. The article begins by highlighting a common industry problem: payment platforms appear homogenized on the surface, offering similar features like global acquiring and multi-currency accounts. However, their underlying capabilities differ vastly. Customers truly care about payment stability, compliance robustness, and reliable market entry support. Zhang identifies three strategic paths: 1. **Bypassing Traditional Systems (Web3/Crypto):** This path promises efficiency via stablecoins and blockchain settlement but struggles with mainstream adoption, significant regulatory friction, and a lack of competitive edge against established players, often leaving it with niche or non-compliant markets. 2. **Packaging Existing Infrastructure:** The most common route, where companies layer a modern interface over legacy banking and partner networks. While enabling fast expansion, it fails to solve core issues like dependency on correspondent banks and intermediary risk, merely postponing the need for solid foundations. 3. **Building Own Global Infrastructure:** The path chosen by Airwallex, Ant International, and others. It involves obtaining local licenses, establishing direct regulatory relationships, building local teams, and controlling the full technology stack. This "heavy" approach is slow and capital-intensive but aims to internalize complexity, providing customers with a "lighter" experience. The core argument is that for business clients, the highest cost isn't transaction fees but hidden risks like frozen accounts, payment delays, and regulatory shocks. By investing heavily in its own infrastructure, Airwallex seeks to absorb these complexities, offering customers greater stability, cost savings (beyond fees), and long-term certainty. This foundational investment, though initially slow, enables compound growth, as evidenced by Airwallex's accelerated revenue scaling. In conclusion, while shortcuts enable faster growth, mastering the most difficult aspects—owning the underlying infrastructure—creates durable value for customers and sustainable advantage for the payment provider.

marsbit4 saat önce

The Truth About Global Payments, Exposed by Airwallex

marsbit4 saat önce

The Truth About Global Payments, Revealed by Airwallex

The article discusses Airwallex's approach to global payments, highlighting the key challenges and different strategic paths in the industry. It begins by addressing common user questions about platform reliability, cryptocurrency payments, and the necessity of Airwallex's "heavy" infrastructure model. The core argument is that while many payment platforms appear similar on the surface—offering features like global acquiring and multi-currency accounts—their underlying capabilities differ drastically. The piece identifies three primary paths for global payment providers: 1. **Bypassing Traditional Infrastructure (Web3/Crypto):** This path promises efficiency through stablecoins and on-chain settlements but faces significant regulatory hurdles and offers little advantage over established players for mainstream use, often serving only niche or non-compliant markets. 2. **Aggregating/Packaging Existing Infrastructure:** The most common route, where companies layer a better user experience over legacy banking and partner networks. While fast to market, this approach does not solve fundamental issues like dependency on intermediaries, correspondent banking risks, and compliance fragility. 3. **Building Proprietary Global Infrastructure:** The path chosen by Airwallex and similar firms. This involves obtaining local licenses, building direct regulatory relationships, establishing local teams, and controlling the compliance and technology stack. This is the most difficult and capital-intensive route but aims to internalize complexity. Airwallex's strategy of "heavy" investment in its own infrastructure is framed not as inefficiency, but as a long-term bet to provide clients with greater stability, cost savings beyond fees, and certainty. The platform's "heaviness" absorbs risk and operational complexity, aiming to deliver a "lighter" experience for business customers. The article concludes that in global payments, while shortcuts enable faster growth, mastering the most difficult aspects—the underlying infrastructure—is what creates durable value for clients and sustainable competitive advantage.

链捕手4 saat önce

The Truth About Global Payments, Revealed by Airwallex

链捕手4 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片