[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":877},["ShallowReactive",2],{"tag-asset-freeze":3},[4,528],{"_path":5,"_dir":6,"_draft":7,"_partial":7,"_locale":8,"title":9,"description":10,"slug":11,"date":12,"lastUpdated":12,"author":13,"readingTime":14,"category":15,"tags":16,"ogImage":21,"featured":7,"body":22,"_type":522,"_id":523,"_source":524,"_file":525,"_stem":526,"_extension":527},"\u002Farticles\u002F28-crypto-prejudgment-asset-freeze","articles",false,"","A trace is not an asset freeze: Choosing a prejudgment remedy","Blockchain tracing locates crypto but restrains nothing. Choosing the prejudgment attachment, injunction, or receivership that actually preserves assets.","crypto-prejudgment-asset-freeze","2026-06-20","Nick Kampe",14,"Legal Reference",[17,18,19,20],"asset-freeze","prejudgment-remedies","attachment","litigation","\u002Fog\u002Fcrypto-prejudgment-asset-freeze.png",{"type":23,"children":24,"toc":500},"root",[25,33,40,54,59,89,102,108,123,130,135,167,172,178,183,188,193,199,213,218,236,259,265,286,291,297,302,307,320,326,369,375,380,385,391,404,410,416,427,433,442,448,457,463,472,478,487],{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":28,"children":29},"element","p",{},[30],{"type":31,"value":32},"text","The forensic report is finished, and the analyst has followed the funds to a custodial account with a fixed balance. Nothing has changed on the ledger, and nothing will change until a court acts: a blockchain trace is an evidentiary picture, not a restraint. This article maps the prejudgment mechanisms available to a private plaintiff in U.S. courts, explains the federal limits on freezing assets, and lays out the sequence that turns a trace into an enforceable hold.",{"type":26,"tag":34,"props":35,"children":37},"h2",{"id":36},"what-a-trace-establishes-and-what-it-does-not",[38],{"type":31,"value":39},"What a Trace Establishes and What It Does Not",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":41,"children":42},{},[43,45,52],{"type":31,"value":44},"A trace answers evidentiary questions: which addresses received and sent which assets, in what amounts and at what times, and through which exchange deposit addresses the funds flowed (",{"type":26,"tag":46,"props":47,"children":49},"a",{"href":48},"\u002Fresources\u002Fcan-blockchain-transactions-be-traced",[50],{"type":31,"value":51},"how blockchain transactions can be traced",{"type":31,"value":53},"). It does not restrain anyone. The private key still works and the exchange account is still liquid, so the defendant can move the balance seconds after learning the investigation exists.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":55,"children":56},{},[57],{"type":31,"value":58},"Five functions lead to final recovery, and conflating them is the common error:",{"type":26,"tag":60,"props":61,"children":62},"ul",{},[63,69,74,79,84],{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":65,"children":66},"li",{},[67],{"type":31,"value":68},"Locate: the trace identifies addresses, accounts, and protocol positions.",{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":70,"children":71},{},[72],{"type":31,"value":73},"Custody: the asset sits with an exchange, an issuer, a custodian, or the defendant's own keys.",{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":75,"children":76},{},[77],{"type":31,"value":78},"Restrain: a court order bars the defendant or a custodian from moving specific assets.",{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":80,"children":81},{},[82],{"type":31,"value":83},"Seize: the government or a levy officer takes possession under statutory authority.",{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":85,"children":86},{},[87],{"type":31,"value":88},"Recover: the plaintiff obtains a judgment and executes or receives a turnover.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":90,"children":91},{},[92,94,100],{"type":31,"value":93},"A stablecoin issuer's blacklist is a compliance function, not a judicial restraint, and is covered separately in ",{"type":26,"tag":46,"props":95,"children":97},{"href":96},"\u002Fresources\u002Fstablecoins-freeze-option-usdt-usdc",[98],{"type":31,"value":99},"stablecoins and the freeze option for USDT and USDC",{"type":31,"value":101},". For a private plaintiff, only a court order creates the restraint, and it must be served and implemented while the trace is still current.",{"type":26,"tag":34,"props":103,"children":105},{"id":104},"jurisdiction-and-the-two-federal-rules-that-matter",[106],{"type":31,"value":107},"Jurisdiction and the Two Federal Rules That Matter",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":109,"children":110},{},[111,113,121],{"type":31,"value":112},"This article addresses U.S. federal court practice; state-court procedure differs and must be checked in the forum. Two rules govern what a plaintiff can do before judgment: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64, which borrows state seizure remedies, and Rule 65, which governs temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. Both appear in the ",{"type":26,"tag":46,"props":114,"children":118},{"href":115,"rel":116},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.uscourts.gov\u002Fsites\u002Fdefault\u002Ffiles\u002Fdocument\u002Ffederal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf",[117],"nofollow",[119],{"type":31,"value":120},"official Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pamphlet",{"type":31,"value":122}," (amended through December 1, 2025).",{"type":26,"tag":124,"props":125,"children":127},"h3",{"id":126},"rule-64-seizure-remedies-borrowed-from-state-law",[128],{"type":31,"value":129},"Rule 64: Seizure Remedies Borrowed from State Law",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":131,"children":132},{},[133],{"type":31,"value":134},"Rule 64(a) provides that \"at the commencement of and throughout an action, every remedy is available that, under the law of the state where the court is located, provides for seizing a person or property to secure satisfaction of the potential judgment.\" Rule 64(b) names them: arrest, attachment, garnishment, replevin, sequestration, and corresponding or equivalent remedies.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":136,"children":137},{},[138,140,147,149,156,158,165],{"type":31,"value":139},"The translation to crypto is direct where a custodian exists: if funds sit in an account at a custodial exchange, the exchange is the garnishee. Missouri's attachment statute, for example, reaches \"the lands, tenements, goods, moneys, effects and credits of the defendant in whose hands soever the same may be\" (",{"type":26,"tag":46,"props":141,"children":144},{"href":142,"rel":143},"https:\u002F\u002Frevisor.mo.gov\u002Fmain\u002FOneSection.aspx?section=521.050",[117],[145],{"type":31,"value":146},"Mo. Rev. Stat. § 521.050",{"type":31,"value":148},"). Missouri permits attachment only on grounds enumerated in ",{"type":26,"tag":46,"props":150,"children":153},{"href":151,"rel":152},"https:\u002F\u002Frevisor.mo.gov\u002Fmain\u002FOneSection.aspx?section=521.010",[117],[154],{"type":31,"value":155},"Mo. Rev. Stat. § 521.010",{"type":31,"value":157},", generally with an affidavit and bond (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 521.050). Where assets were transferred to defeat creditors, Missouri's fraudulent-transfer chapter expressly authorizes \"an attachment or other provisional remedy against the asset transferred or other property of the transferee\" (",{"type":26,"tag":46,"props":159,"children":162},{"href":160,"rel":161},"https:\u002F\u002Frevisor.mo.gov\u002Fmain\u002FOneSection.aspx?section=428.039",[117],[163],{"type":31,"value":164},"Mo. Rev. Stat. § 428.039.1(2)",{"type":31,"value":166},").",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":168,"children":169},{},[170],{"type":31,"value":171},"Two cautions. State law controls what Rule 64 can borrow, and states differ: some restrict prejudgment garnishment, some require proof the defendant is nonresident, departing, or concealing assets. Confirm the forum statute covers intangible personal property and accounts, since crypto is neither tangible goods nor a bank balance. And attachment is a vehicle; the pleadings must still state a claim that reaches the specific assets.",{"type":26,"tag":124,"props":173,"children":175},{"id":174},"rule-65-injunctions-restrain-conduct-not-the-ledger",[176],{"type":31,"value":177},"Rule 65: Injunctions Restrain Conduct, Not the Ledger",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":179,"children":180},{},[181],{"type":31,"value":182},"A preliminary injunction requires notice to the adverse party (Rule 65(a)(1)) and satisfaction of the four-part standard: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury absent relief, balance of equities, and the public interest (Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)). A temporary restraining order can issue without notice only if an affidavit or verified complaint shows specific facts of \"immediate and irreparable injury\" before the adverse party can be heard, with the attorney certifying in writing the efforts to give notice and why none should be required (Rule 65(b)(1)). A no-notice TRO expires after entry, not to exceed 14 days, unless extended for good cause or the adverse party consents (Rule 65(b)(2)).",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":184,"children":185},{},[186],{"type":31,"value":187},"Three features matter in crypto cases. Security is mandatory: a TRO or preliminary injunction issues \"only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained\" (Rule 65(c)). The order must describe \"in reasonable detail,\" not by referring to the complaint, the acts restrained or required (Rule 65(d)(1)(C)), so vague asset language fails. And the order binds parties, their officers and agents, and \"other persons who are in active concert or participation with\" them who receive actual notice (Rule 65(d)(2)); that is how a TRO reaches a custodian that is not a named party, and a custodian that honors a withdrawal despite notice risks contempt.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":189,"children":190},{},[191],{"type":31,"value":192},"The trap is treating an injunction as an attachment. Rule 65 restrains behavior; it does not seize or secure property. A motion asking a federal court to freeze \"all assets\" pending a contract claim runs directly into the Supreme Court's limit in Grupo Mexicano.",{"type":26,"tag":34,"props":194,"children":196},{"id":195},"grupo-mexicano-and-the-line-between-specific-property-and-a-general-claim",[197],{"type":31,"value":198},"Grupo Mexicano and the Line Between Specific Property and a General Claim",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":200,"children":201},{},[202,204,211],{"type":31,"value":203},"In ",{"type":26,"tag":46,"props":205,"children":208},{"href":206,"rel":207},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.govinfo.gov\u002Fcontent\u002Fpkg\u002FUSREPORTS-527\u002Fpdf\u002FUSREPORTS-527-308.pdf",[117],[209],{"type":31,"value":210},"Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999)",{"type":31,"value":212},", decided June 17, 1999, investment funds holding roughly $75 million in notes sued a Mexican toll-road developer on a contract claim and obtained a preliminary injunction freezing the defendant's U.S. assets to secure a potential money judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that federal courts have no equitable power to freeze a defendant's assets pending an unsecured money claim. The reasoning is the creditor's-lien point: a general creditor holds no judgment lien, the debtor retains dominion before judgment, and a freeze hands the plaintiff a priority it has not earned.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":214,"children":215},{},[216],{"type":31,"value":217},"The holding channels relief rather than eliminating it. The Court noted that an equitable claim to specific property stands on different ground, observing that a creditor asserting an equitable lien \"presents a different case from that of the unsecured general creditor.\" That distinction is the roadmap:",{"type":26,"tag":60,"props":219,"children":220},{},[221,226,231],{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":222,"children":223},{},[224],{"type":31,"value":225},"Claims that reach specific property can support pretrial orders: conversion or fraud where the plaintiff identifies the wallet or account holding the proceeds, constructive trust over identifiable assets, and fraudulent-transfer claims aimed at specific transferred assets.",{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":227,"children":228},{},[229],{"type":31,"value":230},"Claims that merely seek money, with no identified res, cannot justify a federal freeze as a matter of course. The remedy is state-law attachment or garnishment under Rule 64.",{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":232,"children":233},{},[234],{"type":31,"value":235},"Statutory authorization changes the analysis: where a statute empowers an agency to freeze assets, the Grupo Mexicano objection does not apply, which is why enforcement actions routinely include asset freezes.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":237,"children":238},{},[239,241,248,250,257],{"type":31,"value":240},"A public example shows the difference between seizure authority and civil restraint. On February 8, 2022, the ",{"type":26,"tag":46,"props":242,"children":245},{"href":243,"rel":244},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.justice.gov\u002Fusao-dc\u002Fpr\u002Ftwo-arrested-alleged-conspiracy-launder-45-billion-stolen-cryptocurrency",[117],[246],{"type":31,"value":247},"Department of Justice announced",{"type":31,"value":249}," that two individuals were arrested for an alleged conspiracy to launder bitcoin stolen in the 2016 Bitfinex hack, and that law enforcement had seized over $3.6 billion in cryptocurrency linked to the hack, which Deputy Attorney General Monaco described as the department's largest financial seizure ever. On August 3, 2023, the ",{"type":26,"tag":46,"props":251,"children":254},{"href":252,"rel":253},"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.justice.gov\u002Farchives\u002Fopa\u002Fpr\u002Fbitfinex-hacker-and-wife-plead-guilty-money-laundering-conspiracy-involving-billions",[117],[255],{"type":31,"value":256},"DOJ announced guilty pleas",{"type":31,"value":258}," in the same matter. That power runs on warrants and forfeiture authority; a private creditor has none of it.",{"type":26,"tag":34,"props":260,"children":262},{"id":261},"turning-the-trace-into-declarations-exhibits-and-order-language",[263],{"type":31,"value":264},"Turning the Trace into Declarations, Exhibits, and Order Language",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":266,"children":267},{},[268,270,276,278,284],{"type":31,"value":269},"The forensic package must be built for the motion, not for the analyst's own report. It should contain the addresses and chains, token types and quantities, transaction timestamps, exchange deposit addresses, clustering and attribution evidence, and a clear separation between on-chain facts and the inference that a person controls a wallet (",{"type":26,"tag":46,"props":271,"children":273},{"href":272},"\u002Fmethodology",[274],{"type":31,"value":275},"our methodology",{"type":31,"value":277}," describes how ConsensusIntel structures litigation analyses). The declaration should present the on-chain facts, the basis for attributing control to the defendant, and any behavioral evidence of dissipation risk such as rapid prior liquidations, mixing, or chain-hopping, labeled for what it is: behavior from which intent is inferred, not a confirmed fact. A ",{"type":26,"tag":46,"props":279,"children":281},{"href":280},"\u002Fservices#blockchain-tracing",[282],{"type":31,"value":283},"blockchain tracing",{"type":31,"value":285}," engagement should produce this package in the form a motion needs.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":287,"children":288},{},[289],{"type":31,"value":290},"The proposed order must name the asset with the specificity Rule 65(d)(1)(C) demands: chain, token contract where relevant, address or account identifier, and quantity, plus language reaching \"all proceeds and replacements\" so a swap does not defeat the order mid-stream. Where a custodian holds the funds, the order should direct the custodian by name to restrain the account and refuse withdrawals. Where the target is a stablecoin address, the order can direct the issuer to execute its blacklist function. File the verified complaint, the TRO papers, any attachment or garnishment applications, and the issuer request in parallel; sequential processing is how the asset leaves.",{"type":26,"tag":34,"props":292,"children":294},{"id":293},"where-the-remedy-actually-lands",[295],{"type":31,"value":296},"Where the Remedy Actually Lands",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":298,"children":299},{},[300],{"type":31,"value":301},"Custodial exchange accounts are the most tractable target: the exchange is a third party holding the defendant's property, so it is the natural garnishee and the natural recipient of a served order. Expect compliance to require a complete order, a case caption, and an account identifier; nothing replaces direct service and a written acknowledgment of the hold.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":303,"children":304},{},[305],{"type":31,"value":306},"Stablecoin issuers operate a separate freeze mechanism through their token contracts, which is why USDT and USDC behave differently from Bitcoin or Ether in preserve-and-hold situations. A court order strengthens a freeze request but the issuer executes it, and the mechanism exists only for centralized stablecoins. The limits of that tool are covered in our discussion of stablecoin freezes.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":308,"children":309},{},[310,312,318],{"type":31,"value":311},"Self-custodied wallets are the hard case: no custodian to serve, the order binds the defendant personally, enforcement runs through contempt and discovery of keys and seed phrases, and the realistic function of the order is to preserve the status quo and set up later execution or turnover. Multisig and protocol positions complicate the picture: value may sit in a vault or DeFi position, so the order should identify the position and the parties who control its keys. Mapping which custodial posture applies, and what process each holder will accept, is a standard part of ",{"type":26,"tag":46,"props":313,"children":315},{"href":314},"\u002Fservices#litigation-consulting",[316],{"type":31,"value":317},"litigation consulting",{"type":31,"value":319},".",{"type":26,"tag":34,"props":321,"children":323},{"id":322},"the-same-day-sequence",[324],{"type":31,"value":325},"The Same-Day Sequence",{"type":26,"tag":60,"props":327,"children":328},{},[329,334,339,344,349,354,359,364],{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":330,"children":331},{},[332],{"type":31,"value":333},"Before filing, take a live snapshot of balances at every target address and exchange account; the report's historical balance is not the filing-day balance.",{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":335,"children":336},{},[337],{"type":31,"value":338},"Draft the verified complaint around a specific-property theory so the requested restraint matches the Grupo Mexicano exception.",{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":340,"children":341},{},[342],{"type":31,"value":343},"Prepare the TRO papers, any attachment or garnishment applications, and the issuer freeze request as one package, drafted to Rule 65(d) specificity.",{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":345,"children":346},{},[347],{"type":31,"value":348},"Have the bond figure ready: Rule 65(c) security, plus any state bond required for attachment.",{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":350,"children":351},{},[352],{"type":31,"value":353},"File, obtain the order, and serve the defendant and every custodian in the same window, requesting written acknowledgment.",{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":355,"children":356},{},[357],{"type":31,"value":358},"Submit the issuer freeze request for any USDT or USDC addresses, with the order attached.",{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":360,"children":361},{},[362],{"type":31,"value":363},"Calendar the preliminary injunction hearing inside the TRO's 14-day life, and have the expert re-snapshot balances on the hearing eve.",{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":365,"children":366},{},[367],{"type":31,"value":368},"Monitor the target addresses on-chain after service; post-service movements are both a contempt problem and evidence.",{"type":26,"tag":34,"props":370,"children":372},{"id":371},"hypothetical-example-from-trace-to-tro-in-one-day",[373],{"type":31,"value":374},"Hypothetical Example: From Trace to TRO in One Day",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":376,"children":377},{},[378],{"type":31,"value":379},"Hypothetical example, constructed for illustration, not a real matter: a Missouri company pays a $415,000 invoice that turns out to be a fraud. The funds move from the company's bank to an exchange, convert to USDC, pass through a private wallet, and land in an account at a second exchange under the fraudster's name. An analyst completes the flow map on a Monday: wallet addresses, an Ethereum transaction table, the second exchange's deposit address, and a live USDC balance of roughly $407,000 after fees.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":381,"children":382},{},[383],{"type":31,"value":384},"The case is filed Tuesday in federal court in Missouri. The verified complaint pleads conversion, fraud, and constructive trust over the specific USDC; the TRO motion attaches the analyst's declaration and block-explorer exports; a separate application seeks prejudgment attachment under Rule 64 borrowing Missouri's Chapter 521 procedures, with a $25,000 bond tendered (all figures hypothetical). The TRO restrains the defendant from disposing of the identified USDC, directs the second exchange by name to hold the account, and the plaintiff simultaneously sends the order to Circle requesting a blacklist freeze of the specific address. The exchange acknowledges the hold Wednesday, and monitoring confirms no movement. Nothing here requires a general asset freeze; every restraint is tied to specific property, the only posture Grupo Mexicano tolerates.",{"type":26,"tag":34,"props":386,"children":388},{"id":387},"limitations-and-the-questions-that-decide-the-motion",[389],{"type":31,"value":390},"Limitations and the Questions That Decide the Motion",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":392,"children":393},{},[394,396,402],{"type":31,"value":395},"The honest limitations: federal courts lack equitable power to freeze assets for unsecured money claims; state remedies vary and some are bond-heavy; self-custodied assets cannot be restrained on-chain; issuer cooperation is discretionary; jurisdiction over foreign exchanges is uncertain; and if the defendant is in bankruptcy the automatic stay preempts most of this (the ",{"type":26,"tag":46,"props":397,"children":399},{"href":398},"\u002Fresources\u002Fcryptocurrency-bankruptcy-trustee-checklist",[400],{"type":31,"value":401},"bankruptcy trustee investigation checklist",{"type":31,"value":403}," covers that regime). Beyond Rules 64 and 65, a court can appoint a receiver over identified property in danger of dissipation, generally on notice and best suited to a business entity controlling the wallets. The discovery questions that decide whether a remedy will work: what did each custodian hold at the relevant time and what do they hold now; what KYC and withdrawal-address records exist; does the issuer log freeze requests; where are the keys, devices, and seed phrases; who controls each multisig key; and what jurisdiction facts connect each custodian to a court that can order it. Answer those questions in the same week as the trace, because each answer determines which remedy is even available.",{"type":26,"tag":34,"props":405,"children":407},{"id":406},"frequently-asked-questions",[408],{"type":31,"value":409},"Frequently Asked Questions",{"type":26,"tag":124,"props":411,"children":413},{"id":412},"q-does-a-blockchain-trace-itself-freeze-or-restrain-the-defendants-crypto",[414],{"type":31,"value":415},"Q: Does a blockchain trace itself freeze or restrain the defendant's crypto?",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":417,"children":418},{},[419,425],{"type":26,"tag":420,"props":421,"children":422},"strong",{},[423],{"type":31,"value":424},"A:",{"type":31,"value":426}," No. A trace identifies addresses, amounts, and flow; it has no effect on anyone's ability to transact. Until a court order is served on the defendant and any custodian, the funds remain movable. The near-exception is a stablecoin issuer's own blacklist freeze for USDT or USDC, which is a compliance action rather than a judicial restraint.",{"type":26,"tag":124,"props":428,"children":430},{"id":429},"q-can-i-get-a-federal-tro-freezing-crypto-pending-a-money-judgment",[431],{"type":31,"value":432},"Q: Can I get a federal TRO freezing crypto pending a money judgment?",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":434,"children":435},{},[436,440],{"type":26,"tag":420,"props":437,"children":438},{},[439],{"type":31,"value":424},{"type":31,"value":441}," Not as a general matter. Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999), holds that federal courts lack equity power to freeze assets to secure an unsecured money claim. A TRO can restrain specific assets where the plaintiff asserts an equitable claim to identifiable property, such as conversion, fraud with traced proceeds, constructive trust, or fraudulent transfer, or where a statute authorizes the freeze. Otherwise, the route is state-law attachment or garnishment borrowed through Rule 64.",{"type":26,"tag":124,"props":443,"children":445},{"id":444},"q-what-is-the-difference-between-rule-64-and-rule-65-remedies",[446],{"type":31,"value":447},"Q: What is the difference between Rule 64 and Rule 65 remedies?",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":449,"children":450},{},[451,455],{"type":26,"tag":420,"props":452,"children":453},{},[454],{"type":31,"value":424},{"type":31,"value":456}," Rule 64 makes state seizure remedies available in federal court: attachment, garnishment, replevin, sequestration, and equivalents, reaching property held by a third party such as an exchange. Rule 65 governs injunctions and TROs, which restrain conduct, require notice (with a narrow no-notice TRO capped at 14 days), require security, and must describe the restrained acts in reasonable detail. A pure money claim belongs under Rule 64; Rule 65 restrains people and specific property.",{"type":26,"tag":124,"props":458,"children":460},{"id":459},"q-what-bond-or-security-will-the-court-require",[461],{"type":31,"value":462},"Q: What bond or security will the court require?",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":464,"children":465},{},[466,470],{"type":26,"tag":420,"props":467,"children":468},{},[469],{"type":31,"value":424},{"type":31,"value":471}," Rule 65(c) conditions any TRO or preliminary injunction on security \"in an amount that the court considers proper\" to cover costs and damages from a wrongful restraint. Courts set the figure case by case, and state attachment statutes impose their own bond requirements, as Missouri does in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 521.050. Budget the bond before filing; the court may adjust it at the preliminary injunction stage.",{"type":26,"tag":124,"props":473,"children":475},{"id":474},"q-can-a-court-order-an-exchange-or-stablecoin-issuer-to-freeze-assets",[476],{"type":31,"value":477},"Q: Can a court order an exchange or stablecoin issuer to freeze assets?",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":479,"children":480},{},[481,485],{"type":26,"tag":420,"props":482,"children":483},{},[484],{"type":31,"value":424},{"type":31,"value":486}," Yes, with limits. An order may name a custodian as the directed party, and Rule 65(d)(2) binds non-parties in active concert or participation who receive actual notice, which is why service and a written acknowledgment matter. Stablecoin issuers can freeze specific USDT or USDC addresses through their token contracts when presented with a court order, but the mechanism exists only for centralized stablecoins, the issuer executes it, and a freeze preserves rather than recovers.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":488,"children":489},{},[490,492,498],{"type":31,"value":491},"Every matter differs in forum, claim, and custodial posture, and the choice among attachment, injunction, and receivership is a legal judgment that turns on the specifics. If you are litigating a matter where crypto sits on the other side, ",{"type":26,"tag":46,"props":493,"children":495},{"href":494},"\u002Fcontact",[496],{"type":31,"value":497},"contact ConsensusIntel",{"type":31,"value":499}," to discuss how the trace, the pleadings, and the preservation strategy should fit together.",{"title":8,"searchDepth":501,"depth":501,"links":502},2,[503,504,509,510,511,512,513,514,515],{"id":36,"depth":501,"text":39},{"id":104,"depth":501,"text":107,"children":505},[506,508],{"id":126,"depth":507,"text":129},3,{"id":174,"depth":507,"text":177},{"id":195,"depth":501,"text":198},{"id":261,"depth":501,"text":264},{"id":293,"depth":501,"text":296},{"id":322,"depth":501,"text":325},{"id":371,"depth":501,"text":374},{"id":387,"depth":501,"text":390},{"id":406,"depth":501,"text":409,"children":516},[517,518,519,520,521],{"id":412,"depth":507,"text":415},{"id":429,"depth":507,"text":432},{"id":444,"depth":507,"text":447},{"id":459,"depth":507,"text":462},{"id":474,"depth":507,"text":477},"markdown","content:articles:28-crypto-prejudgment-asset-freeze.md","content","articles\u002F28-crypto-prejudgment-asset-freeze.md","articles\u002F28-crypto-prejudgment-asset-freeze","md",{"_path":529,"_dir":6,"_draft":7,"_partial":7,"_locale":8,"title":530,"description":531,"slug":532,"date":533,"lastUpdated":533,"author":13,"readingTime":534,"category":535,"tags":536,"ogImage":541,"featured":7,"body":542,"_type":522,"_id":874,"_source":524,"_file":875,"_stem":876,"_extension":527},"\u002Farticles\u002F18-stablecoins-freeze-option-usdt-usdc","Stablecoin freeze options for USDT and USDC","How Tether and Circle can freeze USDT and USDC balances, what a freeze does and does not do, and how attorneys can seek timely relief in fraud cases.","stablecoins-freeze-option-usdt-usdc","2026-05-16",6,"Education",[537,538,539,17,540],"stablecoins","usdt","usdc","fraud-recovery","\u002Fog\u002Fstablecoins-freeze-option-usdt-usdc.png",{"type":23,"children":543,"toc":859},[544,549,555,560,565,571,576,598,603,609,614,632,637,643,648,658,668,678,688,694,699,715,725,735,741,746,751,756,768,774,779,784,795,799,805,814,820,829,835,844,850],{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":545,"children":546},{},[547],{"type":31,"value":548},"Most cryptocurrency is decentralized in a meaningful sense: no single entity controls the network or can unilaterally freeze or reverse a transaction. Stablecoins are different. The two dominant dollar-pegged stablecoins, Tether (USDT) and USD Coin (USDC), are issued by centralized companies that retain the technical ability to freeze token balances at specific addresses. This capability has become an important tool in cryptocurrency fraud recovery, and attorneys handling digital asset disputes should understand both what it can do and its practical limitations.",{"type":26,"tag":34,"props":550,"children":552},{"id":551},"what-stablecoins-are",[553],{"type":31,"value":554},"What Stablecoins Are",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":556,"children":557},{},[558],{"type":31,"value":559},"Stablecoins are tokens designed to maintain a fixed value relative to a fiat currency, typically the U.S. dollar. Rather than fluctuating with market supply and demand like Bitcoin or Ethereum, stablecoins are backed by reserves, cash, Treasury bills, or other instruments, held by the issuing entity, which promises to redeem tokens at par.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":561,"children":562},{},[563],{"type":31,"value":564},"USDT (Tether) is the largest stablecoin by market capitalization, with over $100 billion in circulation as of 2025. It operates on multiple blockchains, most Ethereum and Tron. USDC (Circle) is the second-largest, operating primarily on Ethereum, Solana, and Base. Together, these two tokens represent the overwhelming majority of stablecoin transactions in the global cryptocurrency ecosystem.",{"type":26,"tag":34,"props":566,"children":568},{"id":567},"the-freeze-mechanism-how-it-works-technically",[569],{"type":31,"value":570},"The Freeze Mechanism: How It Works Technically",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":572,"children":573},{},[574],{"type":31,"value":575},"When Tether or Circle issues its token, it deploys a smart contract on the blockchain. That contract includes an administrative function that allows the issuer to blacklist specific addresses. Once an address is blacklisted, the token contract refuses to execute any transfer instruction from that address. The blacklisted address still shows a balance, but that balance cannot be moved. The funds are effectively frozen in place.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":577,"children":578},{},[579,581,588,590,596],{"type":31,"value":580},"For Tether (on Ethereum), the relevant function is ",{"type":26,"tag":582,"props":583,"children":585},"code",{"className":584},[],[586],{"type":31,"value":587},"addBlackList(address)",{"type":31,"value":589}," in the USDT contract. For Circle's USDC, the equivalent is ",{"type":26,"tag":582,"props":591,"children":593},{"className":592},[],[594],{"type":31,"value":595},"blacklist(address)",{"type":31,"value":597},". These are public contract functions, meaning any analyst can verify on Etherscan whether a specific address is blacklisted and when the blacklisting occurred.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":599,"children":600},{},[601],{"type":31,"value":602},"Both issuers have exercised this capability in coordination with law enforcement, regulatory authorities, and, in some civil cases, in response to legal process. Tether has historically frozen addresses in connection with law enforcement requests. Circle has done the same, and has also responded to private civil litigation freeze requests in certain circumstances.",{"type":26,"tag":34,"props":604,"children":606},{"id":605},"what-a-freeze-actually-does-and-does-not-do",[607],{"type":31,"value":608},"What a Freeze Actually Does and Does Not Do",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":610,"children":611},{},[612],{"type":31,"value":613},"A freeze prevents the transfer of USDT or USDC from the blacklisted address. It does not:",{"type":26,"tag":60,"props":615,"children":616},{},[617,622,627],{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":618,"children":619},{},[620],{"type":31,"value":621},"Affect other assets at the same address (ETH, other tokens, NFTs remain transferable)",{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":623,"children":624},{},[625],{"type":31,"value":626},"Move the frozen funds. They stay at the blacklisted address, inaccessible to the holder but also not transferred anywhere",{"type":26,"tag":64,"props":628,"children":629},{},[630],{"type":31,"value":631},"Automatically result in recovery: a separate legal process is required to actually obtain the funds",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":633,"children":634},{},[635],{"type":31,"value":636},"A freeze preserves the status quo. It prevents a fraudster or thief from liquidating the frozen stablecoin while legal proceedings move forward. This is its primary value: it buys time.",{"type":26,"tag":34,"props":638,"children":640},{"id":639},"when-tether-and-circle-have-frozen-assets",[641],{"type":31,"value":642},"When Tether and Circle Have Frozen Assets",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":644,"children":645},{},[646],{"type":31,"value":647},"Tether and Circle have frozen addresses in several categories of situations:",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":649,"children":650},{},[651,656],{"type":26,"tag":420,"props":652,"children":653},{},[654],{"type":31,"value":655},"Law enforcement coordination",{"type":31,"value":657},": Both issuers have frozen addresses at the request of law enforcement agencies as part of criminal investigations. This has included addresses associated with ransomware payments, exchange hacks, and sanctions violations.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":659,"children":660},{},[661,666],{"type":26,"tag":420,"props":662,"children":663},{},[664],{"type":31,"value":665},"Sanctions compliance",{"type":31,"value":667},": Addresses appearing on OFAC's SDN list have been blacklisted by both issuers to comply with U.S. sanctions obligations.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":669,"children":670},{},[671,676],{"type":26,"tag":420,"props":672,"children":673},{},[674],{"type":31,"value":675},"Civil litigation and court orders",{"type":31,"value":677},": Circle has, in limited cases, responded to court orders directing it to freeze USDC at specific addresses pending litigation. This is the most relevant pathway for civil recovery matters.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":679,"children":680},{},[681,686],{"type":26,"tag":420,"props":682,"children":683},{},[684],{"type":31,"value":685},"Voluntary cooperation",{"type":31,"value":687},": Both issuers have occasionally frozen assets in response to documented fraud claims accompanied by compelling evidence, particularly where law enforcement has confirmed the underlying fraud.",{"type":26,"tag":34,"props":689,"children":691},{"id":690},"the-process-for-requesting-a-freeze",[692],{"type":31,"value":693},"The Process for Requesting a Freeze",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":695,"children":696},{},[697],{"type":31,"value":698},"There is no standardized legal process for compelling a stablecoin issuer to freeze an address, and the issuers' public policies on voluntary freezes are limited. The practical approaches:",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":700,"children":701},{},[702,707,709,713],{"type":26,"tag":420,"props":703,"children":704},{},[705],{"type":31,"value":706},"For criminal matters",{"type":31,"value":708},": Coordinate with the applicable law enforcement agency (FBI, USSS, CISA) to submit the freeze request through their established channels. Both Tether and Circle have law enforcement liaison contacts and respond to properly formatted law enforcement requests. The ",{"type":26,"tag":46,"props":710,"children":711},{"href":280},[712],{"type":31,"value":283},{"type":31,"value":714}," analysis establishing that the target address holds proceeds of the alleged crime should accompany the request.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":716,"children":717},{},[718,723],{"type":26,"tag":420,"props":719,"children":720},{},[721],{"type":31,"value":722},"For civil matters",{"type":31,"value":724},": A court order directing the freeze is the most reliable mechanism. This requires first obtaining jurisdiction over the relevant issuer, which is possible for Circle (a U.S. company headquartered in Boston) under domestic process, and more complex for Tether (which operates from outside the U.S. but may be subject to jurisdiction based on its U.S. business activities and dollar peg operations). Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions directing Circle or Tether to freeze a specific address have been obtained in civil fraud cases.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":726,"children":727},{},[728,733],{"type":26,"tag":420,"props":729,"children":730},{},[731],{"type":31,"value":732},"Direct request with documentation",{"type":31,"value":734},": Both issuers accept fraud reports and may voluntarily freeze assets pending review, particularly where law enforcement is involved or the matter involves unusually large amounts. This is discretionary and not reliable as a standalone strategy.",{"type":26,"tag":34,"props":736,"children":738},{"id":737},"timing-is-critical",[739],{"type":31,"value":740},"Timing Is Critical",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":742,"children":743},{},[744],{"type":31,"value":745},"The most important practical limitation of the freeze mechanism is timing. A fraudster who moves USDT or USDC from the identified address before the freeze is executed has defeated the strategy. Blockchain asset movement can happen in seconds. A USDT balance present at the time forensic analysis identifies the address may be gone before a freeze request can be processed.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":747,"children":748},{},[749],{"type":31,"value":750},"This creates urgency: from the moment a target address holding stablecoin proceeds is identified, time to freeze is short. The forensic analysis, legal documentation, and freeze request preparation should run in parallel, not sequentially.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":752,"children":753},{},[754],{"type":31,"value":755},"Hypothetical example: An attorney identifies USDC at an address tied to an alleged fraud on Monday morning. If the issuer blacklists the address before a transfer occurs, the USDC remains visible but cannot be moved while the court considers the requested relief.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":757,"children":758},{},[759,761,767],{"type":31,"value":760},"Attorneys handling time-sensitive fraud and theft matters involving USDT or USDC should treat freeze requests as requiring the same urgency as a ",{"type":26,"tag":46,"props":762,"children":764},{"href":763},"\u002Fresources\u002Fcrypto-prejudgment-asset-freeze",[765],{"type":31,"value":766},"TRO application in a cryptocurrency asset freeze",{"type":31,"value":319},{"type":26,"tag":34,"props":769,"children":771},{"id":770},"stablecoins-without-freeze-capability",[772],{"type":31,"value":773},"Stablecoins Without Freeze Capability",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":775,"children":776},{},[777],{"type":31,"value":778},"Not all stablecoins have freeze mechanisms. DAI (issued by MakerDAO) is decentralized and has no centralized entity capable of freezing it. Algorithmic stablecoins (many of which have failed) similarly lacked freeze capability.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":780,"children":781},{},[782],{"type":31,"value":783},"When tracing funds that move from USDT or USDC into DAI or another decentralized stablecoin, the freeze option is no longer available. The forensic analysis should identify the conversion transaction and note the implications for recovery strategy.",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":785,"children":786},{},[787,789,794],{"type":31,"value":788},"The freeze mechanism in USDT and USDC is one of the few tools in civil cryptocurrency fraud recovery that can prevent dissipation of assets in real time. Understanding how it works, how to access it, and its limitations allows attorneys to deploy it effectively in the narrow window where it can make a difference. For an overview of how blockchain evidence is documented, see the ",{"type":26,"tag":46,"props":790,"children":791},{"href":272},[792],{"type":31,"value":793},"methodology",{"type":31,"value":319},{"type":26,"tag":34,"props":796,"children":797},{"id":406},[798],{"type":31,"value":409},{"type":26,"tag":124,"props":800,"children":802},{"id":801},"q-if-a-court-orders-a-usdc-freeze-does-my-client-get-the-tokens-back",[803],{"type":31,"value":804},"Q: If a court orders a USDC freeze, does my client get the tokens back?",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":806,"children":807},{},[808,812],{"type":26,"tag":420,"props":809,"children":810},{},[811],{"type":31,"value":424},{"type":31,"value":813}," No. A freeze prevents transfers from the blacklisted address, but it does not move the balance to your client or anyone else. The article explains that a separate legal process is required to obtain the frozen funds.",{"type":26,"tag":124,"props":815,"children":817},{"id":816},"q-what-evidence-should-i-have-ready-before-seeking-emergency-relief-from-a-stablecoin-issuer",[818],{"type":31,"value":819},"Q: What evidence should I have ready before seeking emergency relief from a stablecoin issuer?",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":821,"children":822},{},[823,827],{"type":26,"tag":420,"props":824,"children":825},{},[826],{"type":31,"value":424},{"type":31,"value":828}," The request should be supported by forensic analysis showing that the identified address holds proceeds of the alleged crime. For a time-sensitive matter, the analysis, legal documentation, and freeze request preparation should proceed in parallel because the stablecoins can be transferred before a freeze is executed.",{"type":26,"tag":124,"props":830,"children":832},{"id":831},"q-does-freezing-usdt-or-usdc-lock-every-asset-at-the-same-address",[833],{"type":31,"value":834},"Q: Does freezing USDT or USDC lock every asset at the same address?",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":836,"children":837},{},[838,842],{"type":26,"tag":420,"props":839,"children":840},{},[841],{"type":31,"value":424},{"type":31,"value":843}," No. The freeze applies to the issuer's token balance at the blacklisted address. ETH, other tokens, and NFTs at that address remain transferable unless another restriction applies.",{"type":26,"tag":124,"props":845,"children":847},{"id":846},"q-what-changes-if-the-trace-shows-usdt-or-usdc-was-converted-into-dai",[848],{"type":31,"value":849},"Q: What changes if the trace shows USDT or USDC was converted into DAI?",{"type":26,"tag":27,"props":851,"children":852},{},[853,857],{"type":26,"tag":420,"props":854,"children":855},{},[856],{"type":31,"value":424},{"type":31,"value":858}," The issuer freeze option is no longer available for the DAI balance because DAI has no centralized issuer that can freeze it. The forensic analysis should identify the conversion transaction and address the resulting recovery implications.",{"title":8,"searchDepth":501,"depth":501,"links":860},[861,862,863,864,865,866,867,868],{"id":551,"depth":501,"text":554},{"id":567,"depth":501,"text":570},{"id":605,"depth":501,"text":608},{"id":639,"depth":501,"text":642},{"id":690,"depth":501,"text":693},{"id":737,"depth":501,"text":740},{"id":770,"depth":501,"text":773},{"id":406,"depth":501,"text":409,"children":869},[870,871,872,873],{"id":801,"depth":507,"text":804},{"id":816,"depth":507,"text":819},{"id":831,"depth":507,"text":834},{"id":846,"depth":507,"text":849},"content:articles:18-stablecoins-freeze-option-usdt-usdc.md","articles\u002F18-stablecoins-freeze-option-usdt-usdc.md","articles\u002F18-stablecoins-freeze-option-usdt-usdc",1790145013677]