A federal court has ruled in favor of the United States government in a case involving the forfeiture of approximately 40,353 USDT.ETH cryptocurrency. This ruling stems from a fraudulent scheme where a person impersonated a political committee to trick a donor into sending cryptocurrency. The decision, made by Judge Christopher R. Cooper in the District Court for the District of Columbia, is significant as it highlights the growing issue of cryptocurrency fraud and the government's efforts to combat it.

The case, officially titled United States v. Approximately 40,353 USDT.ETH Cryptocurrency, was filed under Civil Action No. 2025-2116 on October 28, 2026. The ruling affects the unidentified victim who lost a substantial amount of cryptocurrency and underscores the legal ramifications of online fraud.

Background

The dispute began on Christmas Eve 2024 when an unnamed victim, referred to as “Victim-1,” received an email solicitation for donations to the Trump-Vance Inaugural Committee. The email was sent by an individual impersonating Steve Witkoff, a co-chair of the Committee, using a deceptive email address that closely resembled the official domain. Victim-1, believing the solicitation was genuine, donated 250,300 USDT.ETH to a cryptocurrency wallet.

Shortly after the donation, the funds were moved out of the wallet, with a significant portion transferred to another wallet linked to a person named Ehiremen Aigbokhan in Nigeria. The FBI intervened by requesting Tether, a cryptocurrency wallet-management company, to freeze the funds in the original wallet. Additionally, they sought to freeze the funds in the wallet associated with Aigbokhan, who was later identified as the perpetrator of the fraud.

In January 2025, a magistrate judge found probable cause for the seizure of the cryptocurrency. The government filed a verified complaint for forfeiture in July 2025, claiming that the cryptocurrency was involved in wire fraud and money laundering, violating federal law. The government also published a notice of forfeiture, but no claims were made by any potential claimants.

The Ruling

Judge Christopher R. Cooper ruled in favor of the government's motion for default judgment, stating that the government had met the necessary legal requirements for forfeiture. The court noted, "The government has satisfied the standard for default judgment and the requirements enumerated in Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions." This ruling allows the government to seize the cryptocurrency permanently.

The court found that the government provided adequate notice of the forfeiture action and that the verified complaint met the necessary pleading standards. The ruling emphasized that the allegations in the complaint, including the fraudulent email scheme and the subsequent laundering of the funds, supported the government's claim for forfeiture. The judge stated, "The allegations abundantly support a reasonable belief that the government would be able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Property is traceable to wire fraud and money laundering."

Impact

This ruling sets a precedent for how courts may handle cryptocurrency in cases of fraud and money laundering. It underscores the importance of recognizing and addressing the vulnerabilities associated with digital currencies. As cryptocurrency becomes more mainstream, the legal system is adapting to ensure that fraudulent activities can be effectively prosecuted and that victims can seek justice.

The decision also highlights the government's commitment to combating online fraud, especially in the context of political donations. It serves as a warning to potential fraudsters that impersonation schemes can lead to severe legal consequences, including the forfeiture of assets obtained through illegal means.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding the possibility of an appeal. However, as no claimants have emerged to contest the forfeiture, it appears that the ruling will stand unless further legal action is taken.