US Seizes About $84.2 Million in Capstone Assets in EQIBank Payment Case

Key Facts

US authorities have seized roughly $84.2 million in bank assets and USDT held in the name of payments company Capstone Limited and are seeking permanent forfeiture in a civil case. Prosecutors allege that the company used US accounts to process transfers for customers of Dominica-based EQIBank. News reports linked that payment arrangement to Tether and Bitfinex, both customers of the bank. The Justice Department did not allege wrongdoing by either crypto company in the case, Reuters reported. The assets seized and the much larger volume of transfers prosecutors say passed through the accounts are different measures. Filing a civil forfeiture action also does not settle who ultimately owns the assets or whether the government may keep them.

A court publication order identifies approximately $79.11 million in a Wells Fargo Securities account held in Capstone’s name as the largest component. It lists another $1.86 million in a Wells Fargo Bank account and about $2.06 million at JPMorgan Chase. The property also includes roughly 1.12 million USDT at one digital-wallet address and 54,578.45 USDT at another. At USDT’s dollar peg, those items total about $84.2 million. The breakdown matters because bank balances account for most of the disputed property, while the tokens make up a smaller share. It defines what the government is trying to forfeit, rather than the total value of payments the company allegedly processed over time.

Prosecutors say Capstone operated as a money services business but described itself to US banks as an information technology company when opening accounts. Reuters reported that it processed payments for two crypto companies under an arrangement with a bank in Dominica. Other coverage citing the Financial Times identified the companies as Tether and Bitfinex and said the alleged transfers ran to hundreds of millions of dollars. That figure describes the volume authorities say moved through the intermediary, not the balance seized. Prosecutors also linked Capstone to an alleged scheme in which people impersonated FBI agents to obtain victims’ money and convert the proceeds into crypto, Reuters reported. These remain allegations in legal proceedings, not findings that establish any party’s liability.

The intermediary matters because it connects a bank outside the United States to US accounts used for dollar payments. When a bank such as EQIBank relies on a company with accounts at Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase, customer money can pass through the company before reaching its destination. If the intermediary gave those banks an inaccurate description of its business, as prosecutors allege, the banks’ assessment of the flows becomes part of the dispute. Seizing the accounts then restricts access to the balances regardless of who claims to own them economically. That can affect both the bank seeking the funds and customers using its payment arrangements. A payment passing through the structure does not, by itself, establish that each customer knew of the conduct alleged against the intermediary.

Tether acknowledged being an EQIBank customer and said it did not know of the conduct the Justice Department alleges against Capstone, according to Reuters. The company said assets it held at the bank represented less than 0.034% of total group assets, without disclosing a dollar deposit balance. That percentage sets out the exposure Tether disclosed, but does not establish how much it could recover or when. EQIBank’s claim to the seized property is the immediate dispute with the government; for Tether, the financial question is the size and accessibility of its own funds at the bank. Reuters reported that the Justice Department did not accuse Tether or Bitfinex of wrongdoing in the case. The allegations against the payment intermediary therefore need to remain distinct from Tether’s acknowledged banking relationship.

Tether’s reported reserve figures for June 30, 2026 provide a scale for assessing its stated EQIBank exposure. The company reported about $187.75 billion in assets, $183.64 billion in liabilities and a roughly $4.11 billion excess of assets over liabilities. Those totals place one banking relationship in the context of Tether’s overall balance sheet, but do not turn the 0.034% ceiling into a disclosed deposit amount. The June figures also precede the case developments reported in September and cannot alone describe the bank’s liquidity on the day of this report. For USDT holders, the financial issue is access to the banking asset and any eventual loss relative to the issuer’s reserves. The inclusion of Capstone assets in a forfeiture case does not itself establish a realized loss or a change in USDT backing.

EQIBank says authorities seized about $89 million belonging to it, representing roughly 80% of its monetary holdings, according to reports describing the bank’s court position. That sum differs from the approximately $84.2 million in property identified in the government case’s publication order. The bank sought the return of funds, but a judge denied its initial motion in July after the separate forfeiture action was filed, without deciding ultimate ownership. The litigation therefore presents two questions: who owns the money and whether the government can meet the requirements to forfeit it permanently. The dispute explains why the bank’s customers may follow the case even though they are not accused in it. Recovery and any lasting effect on the bank’s ability to meet obligations depend on later court decisions.

The case also calls for a distinction between payments company Capstone Limited and the separately listed Capstone Companies, Inc., whose US market ticker is CAPC. The latter company’s securities filing describes its business and subsidiaries, rather than the payment intermediary named in the forfeiture proceeding. CAPC’s share price is therefore not a direct measure of market reaction to the seizure of Capstone Limited’s accounts or of EQIBank’s potential loss. The closer economic exposure concerns the assets the bank claims and any funds its customers hold there. Assessing that exposure requires an answer on ownership and recovery, not a comparison of two companies with similar names. Investors should identify the legal entity involved before linking a court development to a traded security.

The next stage is the claims process in the Eastern District of California, where the court ordered notice of the forfeiture action to run for 30 consecutive days. Under the order, a person claiming an interest in the property has 60 days from the first day of publication to file a claim, followed by 21 days to answer the complaint or make a qualifying motion. The order does not by itself fix calendar deadlines without the actual first publication date. EQIBank’s claim and subsequent government responses should clarify the competing arguments over ownership and forfeiture. For Tether, a later disclosure of the amount held at the bank or any recovery would be more decisive than its percentage ceiling alone. The targeted assets are identified, while liability, ownership and the ultimate financial outcome remain for the proceedings to resolve.