The order does refer to Tether, but in real it grants authority and gives a binding order to the Israeli police and not to Tether, which is a foreign company that is not represented in Israel. The order was presented to Tether on May 20, 2002, but it does not have coercive power against the company, but rather it has coercive power against the property from the moment it reaches the Israel Police. The order grants the Israel Police the authority to seize the property as provided to it (voluntarily) by Tether and hold it until another decision or up to 180 days from the date of seizure by the Israel Police.
The authority of the Israel Police to carry out the very Vulcanter is derived from its general authority enshrined in section 3 of the Ordinance [New Version], 5731-1971, to act to prevent and detect the offense and to maintain public order and security of life and property; and it is done, inter alia, when the need arises for prompt action necessitated by the volatile nature of the property in question. In any case, the interstate legal aid law, to which the appellant relates, is not relevant to actions of this kind.
- With regard to claims relating to the freezing of additional assets by Tether, which were transferred to the virtual wallet after the date of receipt of the judicial order - the Shamiba will reply that the judicial order that was given to Tether in any case does not constitute the source of the authority to freeze the assets - since the Israeli court, as stated, lacks the authority to order so - and therefore it is certainly not an act of lack of authority as claimed by the appellant."
- On January 12, 2026, a hearing was held on the appeal, in which the parties completed their arguments and answered the court's questions. Among other things, the appellant's counsel replied that from a practical point of view, without relinquishing his arguments, if there is a waiver of the freeze on the transfers of ILS 3.7 million that were made after the issuance of the order, he will be able to suffice it for a certain period. As far as the appellant is concerned, he clarified, it is not only about the money, but also about his good name (transcript of January 12, 2026, p. 7).
At the end of the hearing, the parties were asked to submit a supplementary argument regarding the authority to act to freeze a digital account managed by a foreign company, whether by the Israel Police or by the court, and with reference to the Inter-State Legal Aid Law.
- On the morning of the hearing, the appellant submitted a copy of official documents with English translations, which he claimed he had received from the appellant's Ukrainian lawyer, including the response of the Cyber Department of the Ukrainian Police to a request from a Ukrainian lawyer on behalf of the appellant. The reply stated in connection with the appellant's inquiry regarding the digital wallet (identified by its number), that the Ukrainian police do not have information about pre-trial proceedings regarding the blocking, freezing or restriction of assets in the wallet in question, or contacting Tether regarding this wallet or the appellant's case. At the end of the meeting, it reads as follows:
"We do not see any notices or markings indicating a violation of the law on this wallet. The source of origin of the funds has been verified. The agreement on the purchase of USDT assets for this wallet did not violate legislative norMs. We have a response from Tether Limited that the initiator of the blocking is Cyber Police Israel. We also recommended that the owner not disclose the private access keys to the wallet we, consider such a request to be illegal."