US seizes $84 million from payments firm, leaving Tether's exposure unclear

The seizure of $84 million poses a more specific issue than the headline implies.

What happened

Federal prosecutors in the US have initiated a civil forfeiture action to seize approximately $84.2 million connected to Capstone, a Montana payments firm, based on a complaint filed in California's Eastern District on 15 July 2026. A 14 September court order details the assets: $79.11 million from a Capstone-named Wells Fargo Securities account, $1.86 million from another Wells Fargo account, around $2.06 million at JPMorgan Chase, and more than 1.1 million USDT across two cryptocurrency addresses.

According to prosecutors, Capstone operated an unlicensed money transmission business in at least six states while telling its bank partners it was a regular technology services company. Behind Capstone is EQIBank, a digital bank licensed in Dominica, which allegedly used Capstone to process US dollar transfers, including wires for buying and redeeming USDT. Tether and its related exchange Bitfinex were EQIBank clients, which drew the largest stablecoin issuer into a case where it is not a defendant.

Tether acknowledged the banking link and stated that its exposure is under 0.034% of its total assets. No specific dollar amount was provided. Applying that percentage to the $187.75 billion in group assets reported by Tether for the quarter ended 30 June suggests a maximum of about $64 million, but this is an external estimate, not a figure Tether has released.

Why it matters

A key difference exists between the headlines and what the court has determined. The forfeiture complaint does not directly name Tether, Bitfinex, or EQIBank. The seized assets are listed under Capstone's name, not Tether's, and a federal judge later denied EQIBank's request to recover the funds based on procedural issues, not on the substance of ownership. Thus, the case reported as "Tether's assets seized" is, based on current documents, a seizure from a third-party payments processor that Tether's banking partner utilized.

This leaves a question unanswered: does any portion of Tether's EQIBank exposure involve assets backing USDT, or is it confined to general corporate banking unrelated to reserves? Tether has not publicly clarified, and the court filings do not address it.

Comparison and connection: EQIBank's exposure looks far more serious than Tether's

Compared side by side, the two firms are not exposed equally. EQIBank reports that it has lost access to about $89 million, around 80% of its liquid assets, and has cautioned it might face liquidation if access is not regained. Tether's stated exposure, even using the $64 million upper estimate, amounts to a fraction of a percent of its balance sheet.

The $84.2 million from the court filing and EQIBank's $89 million do not align, and no public document has explained the discrepancy. This shows that the figures in this narrative come from three separate sources—the DOJ complaint, EQIBank's statements, and Tether's percentage disclosure—each describing a different item.

A useful comparison is Tether's latest audited figures. On 13 August, Tether announced that KPMG US issued an unqualified opinion on Tether International's 2025 financial statements, indicating reserves exceeded liabilities by $6.814 billion as of 31 December 2025. That audit is several months older than this case and does not address the EQIBank relationship, so it serves as background on Tether's overall finances rather than proof regarding this particular exposure.

Market reaction

USDT has not reacted to this development. The stablecoin traded near its dollar peg, at about $0.9997, during Asian trading after the news emerged on 25 September, and has remained there since. That aligns with the market viewing it as a counterparty risk issue rather than a reserves concern—highlighting the complex banking relationships behind stablecoin issuance, not a shortfall in USDT's backing.

What to watch next

The key facts that could move this story are not yet available. Watch for any court document that clarifies whether the frozen Capstone or EQIBank funds are connected to USDT reserves or just general corporate accounts, and for Tether to disclose an exact dollar amount instead of a percentage. Also monitor EQIBank's solvency, as a formal liquidation would be a more tangible market structure event, separate from Tether directly. Until such details emerge, the $84 million figure linked to Tether in headlines should be seen as primarily a problem for EQIBank and Capstone, with Tether's exposure still unspecified.