| Central-Lod District Court |
| Other Appeal 54295-12-25 Ndorenko v. State of Israel
Exterior Case: |
| Before | The Honorable Judge Dror Arad-Ayalon
|
|
|
The Appellant |
Artyom Nadurenko |
|
|
Against
|
||
| The Respondent | State of Israel – Israel Police (Cyber Unit) | |
On behalf of the appellant, Adv. Michael Ironi
On behalf of the Respondent , Adv. Toby Harel and Adv. Moshe Yehezkel – Central District Attorney’s Office (Criminal)
Superintendent Shimrit Reiss and Superintendent Lior Grechtal – Israel Police
Judgment
On May 20, 2025, the Court of First Instance granted, at the request of the VIP Central Online Crime Division of the Israel Police, and ex parte, an order to freeze a certain account in the foreign company Tether (hereinafter: the "Order"), when the account number was presented in the order (and there is no need to provide it within the framework of this decision, and it will hereinafter refer to the "Account" or "Wallet").
Before an appeal against the decision of the Magistrate's Court in Rishon Lezion (the Honorable Judge Guy Maimon), the return of seized file 54825-09-25 of November 27, 2025, in which it rejected the appellant's request to cancel the order, and accepted the respondent's request to extend the order by an additional 180 days from November 16, 2025.
The main question to be decided is whether the court was authorized to issue an order to a foreign entity that is not in Israel and is not subject to Israeli law, to seize an object, and in our case to freeze an account that is not in Israel.
Upon examination, I found that the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Arrest and Search), 5729-1969, does not grant the court extraterritorial jurisdiction in questions of search and seizure (including freezing of accounts), and therefore the order was issued without authority. In addition, in the circumstances of the case, the response of a foreign company that takes into account to the prior application of the Israel Police should not be regarded as granting territorial authority (and it is even doubtful whether the mere application to the company in its circumstances is within the authority of the police).
Summary of the facts
- As part of an investigation conducted by the Israel Police through the Online Crime Division of the VIP Center and the Cyber Unit at Lahav 433, a request was submitted on May 18, 2025, for a freeze order "by account number" as follows:
| Account No. | Branch | Bank |
| [The said account number] | Tether |
The reasons for the request were supported by confidential material and the appendices attached to it.
- There is no dispute that Tether is a foreign company (apparently registered in El Salvador and also operating in Ukraine), which has no representation in Israel and is not subject to Israeli law. Tether is engaged in the management of digital wallets and is the issuer of the USDT stablecoin. The account is actually a digital wallet managed by Tether, to and from which transfers are made from time to time. According to the appellant, he is the owner of the said digital wallet, and the sole controlling shareholder thereof.
- On May 20, 2025, after reviewing the investigation file, the trial court granted the request.
In section 1 of the order, the reasons understood in the form were approved as follows: "There is a reasonable basis to assume that an offense was committed with that object and/or as a means of committing it, and/or constitutes property worth the scope of the offense for the purpose of this investigation and/or future forfeiture in accordance with the law."