On Thursday, October 8, 2026, claimant Lawrence D. Van Dyn Hoven filed an answer in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, contesting the federal government’s effort to forfeit roughly 2.39 million in Tether stablecoin that he says may include funds taken from him in a cryptocurrency investment scam.
The filing responds to the government’s civil forfeiture complaint against the digital assets, which are named as the defendant in the case.
Van Dyn Hoven, represented by Wade Weems of McGovern Weems & West LLP in New York, submitted the answer under federal forfeiture law and the Supplemental Rules governing such actions. He asserts an interest only in the portion of the seized funds that can be shown to be, or be traced to, the cryptocurrency he lost to the scheme described in his earlier verified claim.
In the answer, Van Dyn Hoven acknowledges that cryptocurrency investment fraud schemes exist and states that he was a victim of one. He says he lacks sufficient knowledge to confirm or deny most of the government’s factual allegations, including those in the majority of paragraphs describing the investigation and the movement of funds. He does not dispute the complaint’s definitions of technical terms such as blockchain, virtual currency wallets, exchanges, stablecoins, and Tether.
On jurisdiction and venue, the claimant states that he does not contest the court’s authority for purposes of pursuing his claim. He also describes numerous paragraphs of the complaint as legal conclusions requiring no response.
Van Dyn Hoven denies that the United States holds any right, title, or interest superior to his in any part of the property that constitutes or can be traced to his stolen cryptocurrency. He asks that any forfeiture judgment expressly preserve his rights.
The answer raises two defenses. First, he contends that his ownership interest is superior to the government’s, stating that he did not knowingly relinquish his cryptocurrency to those who carried out the fraud. Second, he invokes the innocent owner defense under 18 U.S.C. § 983(d), stating that he neither knew of nor consented to the unlawful conduct underlying the forfeiture.
The filing reserves his right to seek leave to amend the answer or his defenses as discovery and tracing evidence emerge.
The 11-page document does not specify how much of the roughly 2.39 million USDT Van Dyn Hoven claims was taken from him.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
Be the first to comment