USDT and sanctions against Iran: Tether responds to accusations from the US Senate
Paolo Ardoino disputes criticism of USDT and claims Tether blocks addresses before they are officially designated.
Quick Look
Faced with criticism from a US Senate report and a letter from Richard Blumenthal, Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino claims that the company freezes illicit addresses before official designations and claims a drop in volumes linked to Iran.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
A report from US Senate Democratic investigators points to the use of USDT in connection with Iran. Senator Richard Blumenthal called out financial partner Cantor Fitzgerald.
Tether responds on freeze schedule. After the report on Iranian financial circuits and the letter from Senator Richard Blumenthal to Cantor Fitzgerald, Paolo Ardoino contests the criticism aimed at USDT. In a message published on October 19, the CEO of Tether claims that the company blocks the affected addresses before their official designation. He also attributes a 94% drop in Iran-linked stablecoin volumes to his interventions. The defense has the floor.
Key Points
Paolo Ardoino affirms that, since 2023, the freezes concerned precede the American and Israeli designations by an average of four weeks.
Tether claims a 94% drop in stablecoin volumes linked to Iran, without detailing the calculation method in its message.
This response comes after a report from Senate Democratic investigators and a letter addressed to Cantor Fitzgerald, Tether's financial partner.
Tether claims to block addresses before sanctions
Paolo Ardoino's defense firstly concerns the chronology. According to him, since 2023, Tether has frozen the addresses concerned four weeks on average before their designation by OFAC, the American service responsible for sanctions, and the Israeli office to combat the financing of terrorism.
The manager adds that, in 99% of the cases mentioned, the company intervened before Chainalysis marked these addresses in its analysis tools. He thus criticizes Blumenthal's report for neglecting the anticipated actions of the issuer.
Paolo Ardoino also suggests a 94% drop in the volumes of stablecoins linked to Iran, which he attributes to freezes and cooperation with the authorities. However, his message does not specify either the comparison period or the scope allowing this calculation to be reproduced.
This response extends the September 28 statement, in which Tether claimed approximately $550 million in USDT frozen in 2026 in wallets linked to Iran. The company cited in particular interventions in April and July. She argues that the transparency of blockchains makes it easier to track funds and blockages when authorities pass on actionable intelligence.
The Senate report and the links with Cantor remain at the heart of the file
Democratic investigators from the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations studied 846 portfolios sanctioned or targeted by seizures for their links with Iran and its regional relays. According to their report, 84% used USDT exclusively or almost exclusively. This proportion describes the sample studied, not all stablecoin users.
Their criticisms also concern freezes deemed late or insufficient, particularly before 2024, as well as addresses presenting public indications of illicit activity. Richard Blumenthal has asked the Treasury and the Department of Justice to review compliance with sanctions and anti-money laundering obligations.
The senator then asked Cantor Fitzgerald on October 8 about his relationship with Tether. This approach targets in particular the controls of the financial group, which retains and manages part of the issuer's reserves.
Mr. Ardoino's response therefore concerns a specific aspect: the speed of Tether's interventions. She did not directly respond to questions directed to Cantor. Disagreement persists between the record of cooperation claimed by the company and the inadequacies noted by investigators.
Open Questions
- What is the exact calculation method for the 94% drop claimed by Tether?
- What action will be taken by the US Treasury and the Department of Justice?







