Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino has challenged Senator Richard Blumenthal’s Iran sanctions report, saying the company has frozen flagged addresses an average of four weeks before official designations since 2023. Summary Four weeks was Tether’s average lead over official designations since 2023, according to Ardoino. 99% of reported addresses were frozen before Chainalysis labeled them, the chief executive claimed. 84% of 846 Iran-linked wallets used USDT exclusively or nearly exclusively, Senate investigators reported. Blumenthal has requested federal investigations into Tether’s sanctions and anti-money-laundering practices. Paolo Ardoino said in an Oct. 19 post that the comparison covered designations by the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control and Israel’s National Bureau for Counter Terror Financing. Tether cites earlier freezes in its sanctions defense In his Oct. 19 post, Ardoino accused Blumenthal’s analysis of overlooking the timing of Tether’s actions. His four-week figure referred to an average across freezes since 2023, while the separate 99% claim concerned whether Tether acted before Chainalysis applied labels. Senator Blumenthal’s “analysis” of Tether’s sanctions report misses that, since 2023, Tether froze on average 4 weeks prior to OFAC & NBCTF official sanction designation and for 99% of the times Tether froze the reported addresses before Chainalysis labelled them.Tether…— Paolo Ardoino 🤖 (@paoloardoino) October 19, 2026 Ardoino wrote that “for 99% of the times Tether froze the reported addresses before Chainalysis labelled them.” He attributed a 94% decline in Iran-linked stablecoin volumes to Tether’s actions and credited the company’s law enforcement partnerships for its response to new threats. The post presented the decline as a result of the issuer’s enforcement work. The supplied statement does not identify the addresses used to calculate either timing figure, the number of observations, or the period measured for the volume decline. Ardoino’s figures remain company assertions, without an independently examined dataset establishing the averages or the claimed reduction. The screenshot shows the post was edited on Oct. 19. Its wording challenges the senator’s interpretation of the sanctions record, while presenting the freeze dates, analytics labels, and transaction-volume change as separate measures of Tether’s performance. Ardoino did not claim in the post that the Senate’s entire wallet sample had been frozen. His response follows the Senate sanctions inquiry, which crypto.news previously reported on Sep. 29. Democratic investigators examined wallets associated with Iran and regional organizations that had been sanctioned or targeted for seizure. Senate investigators allege delays in blocking wallets Blumenthal’s office reported on Sep. 28 that 84% of the 846 wallets transacted exclusively, or nearly exclusively, in USDT. The release attributed the analysis to Democratic staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The senator alleged that USDT helped Iranian networks move money across borders and support activities involving the country’s central bank. His office accused Tether of failing to consistently freeze illicit wallets before 2024 and of continuing to miss addresses that should have prompted action. In its preliminary report, the Democratic staff described a specific set of 39 addresses identified by the Israeli bureau in June 2023 as associated with a Hezbollah money launderer. According to the report, Tether froze five of those addresses earlier but waited until March 2024 to block the remaining 34. Investigators said more than $34.6 million in USDT left the designated wallets after the seizure notice was published. The staff included a qualification about its chronology. Footnote 56 says Israeli orders sometimes became public weeks or months after their signature dates, and investigators noted apparent publication dates where available. The report’s allegations concern individual cases as well as the company’s overall compliance practices. Earlier USDT freezes provide a documented timeline Tether’s Sep. 28 company statement cited nearly $550 million in Iran-linked USDT freezes during 2026. The issuer said it worked from information supplied by U.S. authorities when it helped freeze more than $344 million across two addresses in April. According to that statement, OFAC added the two addresses to the Central Bank of Iran’s sanctions entry the following day. The company cited a July action involving more than $130 million across four further wallets. Coverage of the July wallet freezes, published July 15, recorded Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s announcement that OFAC had sanctioned wallets connected to Iran’s central bank. On-chain investigator Specter identified four TRON addresses holding roughly $131 million in USDT. In its account of the Iran-linked asset freezes, published Sep. 28, the outlet noted that Tether’s announcement did not itemize every freeze included in the approximately $550 million total. US authorities face an investigation request and a separate asset case Blumenthal referred the Senate findings to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Attorney General Todd Blanche. His letters requested investigations into potential sanctions and banking-law violations, with enforcement action if officials found breaches. The senator named the Bank Secrecy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act among the laws he wanted Treasury to consider. The release sets out a request for investigation, without announcing a finding of liability by either department. Separate reporting on the Iran oil proceeds case, published Sep. 15, described a federal civil forfeiture complaint targeting $61.2 million in USDT held across ten TRON addresses. According to the cited court records, Tether froze those addresses in June and July 2025. A Sep. 14, 2026 warrant authorized government custody, while the forfeiture complaint sought a court judgment awarding ownership of the assets to the United States. Prosecutors’ allegations about the funds’ connection to Iranian oil sales remained subject to the civil proceeding.
