On Monday, July 13, 2026, Tower Research Capital LLC filed an answer in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in response to a civil forfeiture complaint brought by the federal government, formally asserting its ownership rights over cryptocurrency assets the firm says were stolen from it years earlier.
In the filing, Tower confirmed that the cryptocurrency named in the government’s forfeiture action — identified as the “Defendant Property” — is traceable to digital currency stolen from the company through an unauthorized computer intrusion. The firm did not contest the government’s account of how the assets moved through various wallets and exchanges before being seized, but it firmly denied that the property is subject to forfeiture as against its own ownership interest.
The government’s complaint, filed under federal forfeiture statutes 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) and (C), references an FBI investigation into intrusions connected to Sony Pictures Entertainment’s computer systems and related cybercriminal activity. Tower acknowledged that it is the “U.S. Victim Company” referenced in the complaint and confirmed that unauthorized actors used malware or other illicit means to breach its systems, transferring company-owned cryptocurrency — including EOS and BNB tokens — without its knowledge or consent.
According to the filing, Tower first learned that more than $11.8 million in cryptocurrency had been stolen from its wallets and subsequently provided information to law enforcement about the theft. The company said the stolen funds were converted and moved through multiple wallets and cryptocurrency exchanges before the government ultimately seized the assets now at issue.
While Tower agreed with many of the government’s underlying factual allegations about the tracing of the funds, it repeatedly stated it lacked sufficient knowledge to confirm specific technical details cited in the complaint, including particular wallet addresses, transaction hash values, and exchange account associations, and denied those specifics on that basis.
Tower’s answer raises several affirmative defenses. Chief among them is a claim of sole ownership, asserting a superior right to possession of the property. The company also invoked “innocent owner” protections under 18 U.S.C. § 983(d)(2), arguing it had no knowledge of any conduct giving rise to forfeiture and took reasonable steps to address the criminal activity once discovered. Tower stated it never voluntarily transferred, assigned, or abandoned its interest in the funds.
Additional defenses cited in the filing include bona fide purchaser status, cooperation with law enforcement, and, in the alternative, a claim to a constructive trust reflecting a superior equitable interest under state law. Tower further argued that forfeiture of its property could constitute an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.
In its request for relief, Tower asked the court to deny forfeiture of the property as against its ownership interest, formally recognize its interest in the assets, and return the property to the company to the fullest extent permitted by law. The filing also sought unspecified additional relief the court may deem appropriate, along with costs associated with the litigation.
Please contact BlockTribune for access to a copy of this filing.
Be the first to comment