Conduit Technology has sued four Tether entities over approximately $2.76 million in USDT that it says has been frozen for more than a year, seeking restored access to the funds and compensation for damage to its business.
The complaint filed October 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York demands at least $2.76 million in compensatory damages, alongside additional financial and court-ordered relief. The case is numbered 1:26-cv-08773. These are the plaintiff's allegations and requests, rather than findings by a judge.
The cross-border payments company describes the affected Fireblocks wallet as a treasury account holding its own working capital, separate from customer funds. It alleges the stablecoin issuer froze the wallet on September 24, 2025, without explaining why, and that approximately $2.76 million remained there as of September 30, 2026.
The company says losing access reduced its ability to pre-fund and settle client transactions, cost it business, and forced layoffs and office closures. Describing the ongoing harm, it states:
Every additional day the freeze remains in place deepens the damage already done.
The disputed Brazilian connection
The complaint connects the freeze to a Brazilian Federal Police investigation involving financial intermediaries, including Onix Intermediações, a former user of the payments platform. The plaintiff argues that this relationship did not justify restricting its separate treasury wallet.
Its account puts Onix's last transaction on the platform on April 22, 2025, nearly a month before the disputed wallet was created on May 20. It maintains that the wallet never held funds belonging to that former customer or related entities.
The company further alleges that Brazilian police did not include its wallet among the addresses they originally identified for freezing. It says the issuer's T3 Financial Crime Unit selected the wallet using undisclosed criteria, and that a Brazilian criminal court acknowledged the company was not among the investigated parties.
What the lawsuit asks for
The six claims include conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, a civil computer-fraud claim, declaratory judgment and an accounting. The plaintiff alleges that the issuer continued earning income on reserves backing the frozen tokens while its own working capital remained inaccessible.
Alongside damages, it seeks an order unfreezing the wallet, repayment of attributable reserve income and profits, punitive damages, interest and permitted legal costs. It also demands a jury trial.
The filing describes repeated approaches in June and an August 19 demand for access to be restored within five business days. The company alleges that the issuer supplied neither an explanation nor substantive relief. The document does not include the defendants' response.