A group of plaintiffs holding terrorism judgments against Iran have filed a garnishment motion in federal court demanding that Tether International hand over $344 million in USDT frozen in Tron wallets linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The May 14, 2026 motion, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, represents an aggressive new strategy for collecting on decades-old judgments: seizing cryptocurrency assets that OFAC has already immobilized. The frozen USDT represents one of the largest single crypto assets caught in sanctions enforcement, and the plaintiffs argue that Tether, as the issuer, has both the legal authority and obligation to facilitate the transfer under New York turnover law and federal terrorism-enforcement statutes. The plaintiffs are families connected to the 1997 Hamas bombing in Jerusalem, who hold unpaid U.S.
judgments against Iran totaling $552.3 million in compensatory damages and $1.86 billion in punitive damages. These judgments have sat uncollected for nearly three decades, with Iran’s sovereign immunity and asset concealment making traditional recovery nearly impossible. The discovery of $344 million in USDT frozen by OFAC in April 2026 has opened what plaintiffs and their attorney, Charles Gerstein, see as a rare window to recover a meaningful portion of their awards. The case underscores how digital assets, once seized by U.S. authorities, may become accessible to judgment creditors through civil garnishment proceedings—a mechanism most terrorism victims have never had the opportunity to use.
Table of Contents
- What Is the Legal Basis for Seizing Frozen Crypto from Tether?
- The Underlying Judgments and Why They Matter
- How OFAC Sanctions Set the Stage for Judgment Recovery
- Tether’s Unusual Position as an Issuer Facing Turnover Demands
- Challenges to Enforcing the Judgment Through Crypto Seizure
- The Role of Attorney Charles Gerstein and Precedent from Crypto Seizure Cases
- Implications for Terrorism Victims and Future Sanctions Enforcement
What Is the Legal Basis for Seizing Frozen Crypto from Tether?
The motion frames the claim as a turnover garnishment against Tether, not a direct seizure of the cryptocurrency itself. Under new York law, a creditor holding a valid judgment can garnish assets in the hands of a third party—in this case, the entity that issued and controls the stablecoin. The plaintiffs argue that because the USDT are frozen due to OFAC sanctions, they are already immobilized and subject to U.S. government control, making them ripe for redirection to satisfy terrorism judgments. The legal theory relies on two parallel doctrines: state-law garnishment procedures, which have been adapted to reach digital assets, and federal terrorism-enforcement statutes that prioritize compensation to victims over sanctioned entities.
What distinguishes this case from routine asset recovery is the involvement of a private cryptocurrency company. Tether does not hold the USDT in a traditional bank account; the tokens exist on the Tron blockchain in wallets that OFAC designated as belonging to the IRGC. Tether’s role is as the issuer and redeemer of the USDT, giving it technical ability to zero out the sanctioned balances and reissue equivalent tokens to a plaintiff-designated wallet. The plaintiffs’ motion seeks precisely this outcome: a court order requiring Tether to perform this technical operation. This is unlike traditional garnishment, where funds are simply transferred between bank accounts. Here, the remedy requires active cooperation from Tether and involves rewriting blockchain records to reassign the underlying claims.
The Underlying Judgments and Why They Matter
The plaintiffs’ judgments stem from terrorist attacks that killed American citizens nearly thirty years ago. In 1997, Hamas carried out bombings that killed U.S. nationals in Jerusalem, and U.S. courts subsequently entered multi-billion-dollar judgments against Iran for sponsoring the attack. Yet collecting on terrorism judgments is notoriously difficult. Iran does not maintain assets in U.S.
banks, does not conduct business through American financial institutions, and benefits from customary international law principles that generally shield sovereign states from judgment enforcement. Most terrorism victims have collected pennies on the dollar or nothing at all. The discovery of $344 million in cryptocurrency represents a rare asset that is both substantial and vulnerable to enforcement. Unlike real property in Tehran or foreign business interests that Iran might argue fall outside U.S. jurisdiction, cryptocurrency wallets designated by OFAC can be frozen at a keystroke and, in theory, redirected by a court order. The limitation, however, is significant: Tether is a private company, and compelling it to reissue tokens creates novel questions about whether a court can order the alteration of blockchain records and whether Tether would face legal liability if it complies. The company must weigh the risk of regulatory scrutiny against the risk of being held in contempt of court.
How OFAC Sanctions Set the Stage for Judgment Recovery
OFAC, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, froze the $344 million in USDT in April 2026 as part of broader sanctions against the IRGC. The freeze was a unilateral enforcement action: OFAC identified Tron wallets controlled by IRGC-linked entities and directed Tether and other market participants to cease transacting with those addresses. The wallets were immobilized, but the funds were not forfeited to the U.S. government. They simply sat frozen, generating no benefit to anyone. In traditional sanctions enforcement, frozen assets may eventually be released, repatriated to the sanctioned entity through a negotiated settlement, or seized by the government.
The novel wrinkle in the Tether case is that plaintiffs holding terrorism judgments are attempting to intercept frozen assets before any of those standard outcomes occur. The legal argument is that once assets are frozen by OFAC, they are effectively in the custody of U.S. authorities and can be made available to satisfy unsecured debts to the U.S. taxpayer and crime victims. This strategy has rarely been tested with cryptocurrencies, making the case a significant precedent-setter. If successful, it could create a new pathway for terrorism victims to recover from sanctioned regimes’ hidden digital assets.
Tether’s Unusual Position as an Issuer Facing Turnover Demands
Tether finds itself in an unprecedented position. As the issuer of USDT, it controls the underlying software and administrative infrastructure that could theoretically zero out balances and reissue tokens. However, Tether is not a bank and has no direct custody of these funds in a traditional sense. The USDT exist on a blockchain, and Tether’s role is to maintain the smart contracts that govern the tokens’ behavior and redemption. A court order directing Tether to reissue tokens would require the company to take affirmative action—editing blockchain records, in effect.
The practical and legal risks for Tether are substantial. Complying with the garnishment motion could expose Tether to claims that it is violating the legal rights of the original IRGC wallet holders, even though those entities are sanctioned. It could also trigger scrutiny from financial regulators and tax authorities who may question whether token reissuance constitutes a taxable event, a commercial transaction subject to licensing requirements, or an improper alteration of blockchain data. Conversely, refusing to comply could result in contempt findings or other judicial sanctions. Tether’s best outcome may be to argue that the company lacks sufficient control over the frozen wallets to execute the technical changes, or that doing so would violate its own contractual and regulatory obligations. The company’s response to the motion will be closely watched by other stablecoin issuers, custodians, and digital asset platforms that may face similar demands.
Challenges to Enforcing the Judgment Through Crypto Seizure
Several significant obstacles could derail the plaintiffs’ bid to recover through the Tether garnishment. First, there is the question of whether a U.S. court can compel a private company to alter blockchain records. Blockchains are designed to be immutable and decentralized, and Tether’s ability to unilaterally rewrite transaction history is itself controversial among crypto advocates who argue it contradicts the technology’s core principles. A court order to do so would represent an extraordinary intervention in the functioning of a financial system that is supposed to operate without centralized control. Second, there is the jurisdictional question. Tether International S.A. de C.V.
is incorporated in Mexico, and the Tron blockchain operates globally across thousands of nodes. Whether a U.S. court can enforce a garnishment order against a foreign-incorporated entity whose system spans international borders remains unsettled. Tether may argue that enforcement would require it to violate Tron’s consensus rules or would constitute an extraterritorial application of U.S. law. Third, the plaintiffs must overcome potential arguments that the frozen funds constitute the property of the sanctioned entity and that redirecting them would improperly take property without due process or without compensation to the original account holders. While sanctioned entities have limited legal standing in U.S. courts, this argument could create procedural delays. Finally, if Tether does comply and reissues the USDT to the plaintiffs, there is no guarantee that the reissued tokens will retain the same value or that the plaintiffs will be able to liquidate them quickly without triggering price impact.
The Role of Attorney Charles Gerstein and Precedent from Crypto Seizure Cases
Charles Gerstein, the attorney prosecuting the Tether case, has established a reputation as a leading advocate in cryptocurrency asset recovery and sanctions enforcement litigation. He has previously been involved in high-profile crypto seizure disputes, including litigation surrounding Arbitrum protocol assets, and has built expertise in navigating the intersection of blockchain technology, financial law, and judgment enforcement. His involvement signals that the Tether case is part of a broader legal strategy to unlock digital assets held by or associated with sanctioned regimes, terrorist organizations, and their financiers.
The Arbitrum litigation experience is instructive. In those cases, similar questions arose about whether courts could compel the custodians and developers of cryptocurrency protocols to take action regarding frozen or seized assets. The outcomes provided some roadmap for how courts approach requests to alter digital asset records, though each case involves fact-specific challenges. The Tether case extends this template to stablecoins and adds the dimension of direct corporate control over token issuance, creating both more leverage and more legal risk for the plaintiffs.
Implications for Terrorism Victims and Future Sanctions Enforcement
The broader significance of the case lies in what it signals for future collections by terrorism victims and sanction enforcement. For decades, terrorism judgments have been nearly uncollectible because sanctioned regimes either hide assets or place them outside U.S. reach. Cryptocurrency, ironically, may have created new enforcement opportunities: digital assets are more difficult for sanctioned entities to conceal and, once detected and frozen by OFAC, may be more accessible to court-ordered seizure than traditional property.
If the plaintiffs succeed in obtaining a garnishment order and Tether complies, the $344 million recovery would represent one of the largest payouts to terrorism victims in recent history. Even if the plaintiffs only recover a portion of their multi-billion-dollar judgment, the precedent would establish that cryptocurrency issuers can be compelled to facilitate the redirection of frozen tokens to satisfy outstanding judgments. This would likely inspire similar motions against other stablecoin providers, crypto exchanges, and digital asset custodians, turning the entire industry into a potential enforcement avenue for terrorism judgment creditors. The stakes extend beyond this single case: they will shape the legal landscape for how courts treat centralized cryptocurrency infrastructure when confronted with claims from judgment creditors and how digital asset companies approach future sanctions compliance.
- —