Tether has confirmed it holds assets at EQIBank, a Dominica-licensed offshore bank currently fighting a U.S. asset seizure — but the stablecoin issuer says the exposure is too small to matter, at less than 0.034% of the group’s total assets.
The relationship came to light through a report by The Information, which described EQIBank as one of Tether’s banking partners, processing wire transfers connected to purchases and redemptions of USDT. Tether confirmed the relationship in a written response and addressed the allegation hanging over the bank’s payment provider: “Tether had no knowledge of the conduct by Capstone alleged by the Department of Justice.”
The company did not disclose the exact amount held at EQIBank, only the percentage ceiling.
What 0.034% actually means
Applying Tether’s stated ceiling to its latest published quarterly figures offers an upper-bound reference rather than a disclosed balance. Tether reported 187.75 billion USD in assets at June 30, which puts 0.034% of that figure at roughly 63.8 million USD. The actual exposure could be meaningfully lower.
The June reserve report placed liabilities at around 183.64 billion USD and excess reserves at 4.11 billion USD, with USDT issuance near 184.6 billion USD at quarter-end. Tether said its reserves remained concentrated in short-duration and liquid assets, including U.S. Treasury-related holdings and repurchase agreements.
Notably, the reported excess reserve buffer had fallen from 8.23 billion USD at the end of the first quarter — a decline worth watching, though still comfortably above the EQIBank ceiling. No verified disclosure establishes that other Tether banking relationships face the same seizure or liquidity issue.
The forfeiture case behind the seizure
Court documents give the dispute its shape. A Sept. 14 federal court order lists approximately 79.11 million USD seized from a Wells Fargo Securities account held in the name of Capstone, the payment provider at the center of the allegations. The same filing lists another 1.86 million USD from a Wells Fargo Bank account and roughly 2.06 million USD from a JPMorgan Chase account. Prosecutors also named 1.12 million USDT from one cryptocurrency address and 54,578.45 USDT from a second. Combined at their dollar peg, the listed property totals roughly 84.2 million USD.
EQIBank describes its loss differently — and more severely. The bank says U.S. authorities seized approximately 89 million USD belonging to it through Capstone, an amount it says represents around 80% of its monetary holdings. In court filings, EQIBank has warned that losing access to the funds could put it at risk of liquidation. The gap between the bank’s claim and the government’s forfeiture total has not been reconciled; the figures come from separate filings in separate proceedings.
The bank’s first attempt to recover funds failed
EQIBank began its federal challenge on June 29, seeking the return of property under Rule 41(g) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The government responded by filing a separate civil forfeiture complaint on July 15 involving the Capstone accounts and cryptocurrency.
During a July 16 hearing, District Judge Dale A. Drozd denied EQIBank’s return-of-property motion for lack of equitable jurisdiction now that the civil forfeiture proceeding existed. The docket does not show the judge deciding whether EQIBank ultimately owns the seized funds or whether prosecutors are entitled to keep them.
The litigation remains active and tangled. On Sept. 16, Judge Drozd ordered the original EQIBank matter and the government’s forfeiture action assigned to the same district and magistrate judges because the cases are related — while expressly stating the reassignment did not consolidate them. A separate Sept. 14 order requires the government to publish notice of the forfeiture action for 30 consecutive days on the federal forfeiture website, with interested parties required to follow the claim procedure under Supplemental Rule G.
EQIBank maintains it is an innocent owner. In court papers quoted by The Information, the bank said “EQIBank is not a rogue bank” and noted the government had not identified it as a target of the investigation. Prosecutors have not adopted that characterization, and the case has not reached a final judgment.
Tether’s audit provides separate context
For Tether, the EQIBank issue involves one banking counterparty inside a much larger asset base. The company completed its first full independent financial statement audit in August, covering the year ended Dec. 31, 2025, with KPMG U.S. issuing an unqualified opinion. Tether said the audited statements showed reserves exceeding token-linked liabilities by 6.814 billion USD at year-end, with KPMG examining transactions, asset ownership, valuations, counterparties and internal systems, and physically inspecting the gold holdings.
That audit predates the June 2026 quarter-end figures and does not determine how much money Tether currently holds at EQIBank. The percentage ceiling remains the company’s only public statement on the matter.
The episode is a reminder that even the largest stablecoin issuer depends on a web of banking relationships whose individual health is largely invisible to USDT holders. Tether’s message is that this particular thread is thin enough to cut without damage. EQIBank’s filings suggest that for the bank itself, the same thread is close to the whole rope.
Market snapshot at 12:00 UTC on Sept. 25: BTC 84,606 USD, ETH 2,716.64 USD, SOL 120.81 USD.
that ‘under 0.034%’ line is doing a lot of work. on 187.75 billion in assets that could still be up to 63.8 million sitting at a bank fighting a US seizure
63.8M frozen would be nothing until redemptions start queueing behind it. upper bound or not, optics run the stablecoin business
tbf they framed it as an upper bound, actual number could be way lower. but if EQIBank funds get frozen that’s a redemption queue test nobody wants
upper bound or not, 63.8M of float frozen is a redemption queue nobody wants to stand in
USDT wires routed through a Dominica-licensed offshore bank and the defense is basically ‘we didn’t know what Capstone was doing’. a real audit would settle this in a week
a real audit would settle it, which is precisely why there will never be one. attestation theater keeps rolling instead
attestations give a snapshot of holdings, audits test controls. tether keeps paying for the snapshot version and headlines keep calling it an audit
forfeiture case names 84.2M while tether caps exposure at 0.034% of 187B. the gap between those two numbers is where the lawyers will live for a year
forfeiture targets 84.2M, exposure ceiling maybe 63.8M. the overlap is uncomfortably close to the whole position being in the blast radius
0.034% ceiling works out to maybe 63.8M against 187B in assets. rounding error for tether, felony territory for capstone lol
felony territory for capstone is the line of the day lol. tether rides this out on percentage framing alone
63.8M ceiling on 187B is noise until redemptions queue behind it. the excess reserve halving from 8.23 to 4.11 is the chart that matters
no knowledge of the conduct, they say, while usdt wires ran through eqibank. the ignorance defense is doing more work than the 0.034% line
no knowledge of the conduct while wires ran through a dominica licensed bank. the plausible deniability budget at that company is bottomless
excess reserves halved from 8.23B to 4.11B in a single quarter and the headline is the bank thing? that drawdown is the real story
this is the comment. 0.034% is a ceiling picked because it sounds microscopic, meanwhile the reserve cushion got halved in a quarter
halved cushion and they still frame everything in percentages. 4.11B excess on 183B of liabilities is 2.2%, one bad quarter from awkward questions
2.2% cushion and shrinking is the whole story. one more quarter like that and the percentage framing stops working on its own
the halving from 8.23B to 4.11B in one quarter is the chart that should be on the front page. a second quarter like that and the 0.034% line stops being the talking point
the eqibank number is noise, the reserve drawdown is what i would watch. good catch
8.23 to 4.11 in one quarter and nobody asked about it at the conference. the eqibank bit is a footnote next to that chart
4.11B excess reserves barely got asked about while everyone chased the 84.2M headline. priorities are completely upside down here
The Information found the EQIBank relationship before any attestation mentioned it. that says more than the 0.034% line
63.8M is the ceiling, not the balance. tether said the actual number could be meaningfully lower. still, anything sitting at EQIBank is now behind a DOJ forfeiture line