Fourth, the result is that in contrast to the removal of publications from a social platform in which the other party is the company operating the platform, in this case, the other party to the harm is the owner of the account in which his assets are located. The company is nothing more than a third party that holds its client's assets through the account (or wallet). In this case, the exception established in the Adalah case is clearly met , according to which "when it is doubtful whether the action is likely to lead to a real infringement of basic rights, extreme caution must be exercised."
- A more significant difference is the respondent's modus operandi. With regard to the removal of publications, the action of the Authority, the Cyber Unit of the State Attorney's Office, is one-way, like an arrow sent from its bow at the online platform without continuity, whether the publication is removed or not. However, in this case, we are dealing with a relationship of feedback. The first stage is similar in nature (but not in its impact), since the Authority, the Cyber Department of the Israel Police, sent the arrow in its initial request of May 19, 2025, and Tether had the power to decide whether to freeze the account or not. However, there is a second stage to this, since the Respondent, who expected that the account would be frozen, applied to the court to receive the order, and upon its signature, informed Tether that it had a judicial order by virtue of which the assets were frozen. On this basis and from that stage, the Respondent saw itself as the one in control of the account (and apparently Tether accepted this, i.e., subjected its action to the judicial order).
This is a planned two-stage action, the beginning of which was envisioned as a non-coercive action relying on the voluntary discretion of Tether, but this stage is nothing more than a "trigger action" for an enforcement action by the Respondent, which is carried out in a complementary process of issuing an order to seize the object and freeze any activity in the account. This action is a clear "coercive act", which was taken on the basis of an argument that there is a reasonable suspicion that an offense was committed by means of it and that there is a possibility that it will be required for future forfeiture (as explicitly stated in the order).