US DOJ seeks to seize $84.2 million linked to Tether payments processor Capstone Ltd.
Quick Look
- The US Department of Justice is pursuing civil forfeiture of $84.2 million that flowed through accounts used by Montana-based payments firm Capstone Ltd. to process Tether transactions.
- The complaint alleges Capstone operated as an unlicensed money transmitter in multiple states, misrepresented itself to banks as an IT services company, and had ties to EQIBank, a Dominica-licensed digital bank.
- Tether confirmed EQIBank handled its USDT transfers but denied knowledge of Capstone's alleged misconduct, noting its exposure is under 0.034% of group assets.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
Capstone Ltd., a Montana-based payments firm, is accused by the US DOJ of operating as an unlicensed money transmitter while posing as an IT services company to banks. The case involves $84.2 million in funds tied to Tether (USDT) processing, with connections to EQIBank, a Dominica-licensed digital bank. Tether has previously faced regulatory scrutiny, including a 2021 settlement with the New York Attorney General over USDT reserves.
The US Department of Justice wants to keep $84.2 million that, according to a civil forfeiture complaint, moved through accounts used to process payments for Tether.
The complaint, filed July 15 in the Eastern District of California before Judge Dale A. Drozd, targets Capstone Ltd., a Montana-based payments firm. According to the complaint, Capstone operated as an unlicensed money transmitter—a business category regulators require a license for specifically because it moves other people's money—in at least six states, and presented itself to banks as an ordinary IT services company.
Capstone's owners, identified as Kotaro Shimogori and Mary Jeanne Thompson, are named in the complaint while the FBI executed a search warrant at a Sacramento residence. Their attorney said the company "denies any wrongdoing" and hopes to "resolve this matter quickly," according to the Financial Times.
Of the $84.2 million at stake in the forfeiture, $79.11 million came out of a Wells Fargo Securities account in Capstone's name on September 14. Civil forfeiture is a legal process that lets the government seize funds tied to an alleged crime without a criminal conviction against the money's owner.
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—a crypto token built to always trade for one dollar.
Behind Capstone sits EQIBank, a Dominica-licensed digital bank that prosecutors say directed how the processor moved money. EQIBank has already warned that losing those funds—roughly 80% of everything the bank holds—could push it into liquidation.
Tether confirmed EQIBank handled its USDT purchase and redemption transfers, but insisted it had "no knowledge of the conduct by Capstone alleged by the Department of Justice," in a statement provided to Reuters. A spokesperson put total exposure at under 0.034% of group assets—a share that feels like nothing against the $187.75 billion in assets Tether reported at the close of the second quarter.
This isn't the first time Tether and its sister company Bitfinex have landed in a prosecutor's crosshairs over how they move money. In 2021, both companies reached a settlement with the New York Attorney General after admitting USDT wasn't always backed dollar-for-dollar as advertised, paying an $18.5 million fine and agreeing to stop trading in the state.
Capstone and EQIBank have already filed an innocent-owner defense over the seized funds. Under Supplemental Rule G, which governs these forfeiture cases, any claimant has 21 days to answer the government's complaint once a formal claim is filed with the court.
What to Watch
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
Capstone and EQIBank will file an innocent-owner claim within 21 days of a formal claim being filed with the court.
Very likely · Within days
The DOJ will proceed with the civil forfeiture case unless a settlement is reached or the claimants successfully prove innocent ownership.
Likely · Within weeks
Open Questions
- What specific allegations support the claim that Capstone was an unlicensed money transmitter?
- What evidence links EQIBank to directing Capstone's money movement?
- Will Capstone and EQIBank successfully assert an innocent-owner defense under Supplemental Rule G?
- How will this case affect regulatory oversight of crypto payment processors?







