U.S. law enforcement is quietly trying to sort through a messy and uncomfortable situation involving seized cryptocurrency, a government contractor, and allegations that tens of millions of dollars were improperly siphoned from wallets controlled by federal authorities.

 

At the center of the case is a claim that more than $40 million in seized crypto was moved out of government-linked wallets without authorization. The U.S. Marshals Service has confirmed it is reviewing the allegations, though no charges have been announced and the investigation remains in its early stages.

 

The claims surfaced publicly after blockchain investigators began flagging unusual on-chain movements tied to wallets believed to be associated with assets seized by the U.S. government in prior criminal cases.

 

Blockchain Trails and a Familiar Name

Much of the attention comes from independent blockchain investigators who traced large transfers from wallets associated with seized funds to addresses allegedly controlled by a single individual. According to multiple blockchain intelligence reports, the individual at the center of this incident is identified as John Daghita, known in crypto circles by the alias “Lick”. Analysts such as ZachXBT, an independent blockchain investigator, publicly tied on-chain movements from government-controlled cryptocurrency addresses to wallets controlled by Daghita.

 

ZachXBT’s investigation reportedly traced back transactions involving tens of millions of dollars to wallet addresses that received $24.9 million from a U.S. government account in March 2024. This particular government account is linked to assets seized after the 2016 Bitfinex hack, one of the largest cryptocurrency thefts in history, where authorities later seized funds connected to that case.

 

“Meet the threat actor John (Lick), who was caught flexing $23M in a wallet address directly tied to $90M+ in suspected thefts from the US Government in 2024 and multiple other unidentified victims from Nov 2025 to Dec 2025”, ZachXBT wrote on X.

 

According to on-chain analysis shared publicly, one wallet received roughly $25 million from a government-controlled address in March 2024. Investigators say the source wallet appears to be tied to cryptocurrency seized in connection with the 2016 Bitfinex hack, a case that has continued to ripple through the crypto industry nearly a decade later.

 

The situation escalated after a dispute in a Telegram group, where the individual allegedly disclosed wallet details that appeared to confirm control over large balances of ether and other digital assets. Once those wallet addresses were public, blockchain analysts quickly began connecting dots.

 

While blockchain data can show where funds move, it cannot on its own establish intent or legality. That distinction has become especially important as the story gains traction.

 

The Contractor Connection

What has made the case particularly sensitive is a reported family link to a government contractor.

 

John Daghita is said to be the son of Dean Daghita, president of Command Services and Support, a Virginia-based firm that holds a federal contract connected to the handling of seized cryptocurrency for the U.S. Marshals Service. The company was awarded that contract in late 2024, following a competitive procurement process that drew objections from rival bidders.

 

The contract reportedly covers the management and liquidation of certain seized digital assets, particularly smaller or less liquid tokens that are not typically handled by large exchanges.

 

There is no public evidence that the contractor itself is under investigation or that the alleged misconduct occurred as part of official company operations. Still, the overlap between government custody, private contractors, and family relationships has raised uncomfortable questions about access controls and oversight.

 

A Broader Problem for Seized Crypto

The allegations land at a time when the U.S. Marshals Service is already under scrutiny for how it manages digital assets. The agency plays a central role in handling property seized in criminal cases, including cryptocurrency tied to fraud, ransomware, darknet markets, and hacking incidents.

 

Over the years, the Marshals Service has accumulated billions of dollars worth of crypto, including large bitcoin holdings seized in high-profile cases. But audits and reporting have repeatedly shown that tracking, accounting, and securing these assets is far from simple.

 

Internal systems were not originally designed for blockchain-based assets, and oversight bodies have previously flagged weaknesses in inventory tracking and custody procedures. In some cases, the agency has struggled to provide a clear accounting of exactly how much crypto it holds at a given time.

 

Those challenges have become more visible as the value of seized crypto has soared and as debates continue in Washington over whether the government should hold, sell, or strategically manage these assets.

 

What Happens Next

For now, the U.S. Marshals Service is keeping its comments limited. Officials have acknowledged the allegations and confirmed that they are being reviewed, but they have not said whether criminal charges are expected or whether any funds have been recovered.

 

Key questions remain unanswered. Investigators will need to determine whether the alleged transfers involved unauthorized access, compromised credentials, or insider misuse of systems tied to crypto custody. Another open issue is whether the case points to individual misconduct or deeper structural weaknesses in how seized digital assets are handled.

 

Until law enforcement provides more clarity, much of the public narrative will continue to be shaped by blockchain analysts and online investigators. As with many crypto-related cases, the transparency of the blockchain offers clues, but not conclusions.

 

What is clear is that the case highlights the growing pains of government agencies adapting to digital assets. As crypto seizures become more common and more valuable, the systems designed to safeguard them are being tested in very real ways.

2025 Was the Year Crypto Regulation in the US Finally Grew Up

For years, crypto regulation in the United States felt stuck in a loop. Regulators argued over definitions. Courts weighed in after the fact. Companies tried to guess how existing rules might be applied to new technology. Progress was slow, uneven, and often reactive.

In 2025, something changed.

Instead of debating what crypto is, lawmakers and regulators began focusing on how crypto markets actually function. The shift was not loud or dramatic, but it was meaningful. And it made 2025 one of the most consequential years for U.S. crypto regulation so far.

 

From Debate to Infrastructure

The defining feature of crypto regulation in 2025 was its practicality.

Regulators spent the year tackling questions that are not especially flashy but matter enormously for market growth. Who is allowed to issue a digital dollar. What backs a stablecoin in real terms. How quickly exchange traded products can be approved. What custody looks like when ownership is defined by control of a private key.

These are not philosophical debates. They are infrastructure decisions. And infrastructure is what determines whether a market stays niche or becomes part of the financial system.

That shift did not mean regulators became more permissive. It meant they became more operational.

 

A Fragmented System, With Clearer Edges

The U.S. regulatory structure remains fragmented. Congress sets the legal framework, but oversight is split across agencies.

• The Securities and Exchange Commission oversees securities markets.
• The Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulates commodities and derivatives.
• The Internal Revenue Service governs tax treatment.
• Banking regulators supervise insured institutions and their subsidiaries.

That structure did not change in 2025. A single digital asset can still fall under multiple regimes depending on how it is traded, marketed, custodied, or used.

What did change is that the parts of crypto that intersect most directly with traditional finance began to get clearer boundaries and processes.

 

Stablecoins Became a Federal Issue

The most significant development of the year was the passage of the GENIUS Act, which established the first federal framework for payment stablecoins in the United States.

Before this law, stablecoins largely operated under state level money transmission rules or informal regulatory expectations. Issuers relied on disclosures and attestations. Banks stayed cautious, unsure how supervisors might view their involvement.

The new framework set expectations around who can issue payment stablecoins, how reserves must be held, and how redemption works under supervision. In practical terms, it began to treat stablecoins less like an experiment and more like financial infrastructure.

That matters because stablecoins sit at the center of crypto trading, payments, and settlement. Clear federal rules make it easier for banks and regulated firms to engage without risking regulatory surprises.

 

Investment Products Got More Predictable

Crypto investment products also moved forward.

The SEC approved generic listing standards for certain commodity based trust products. That change reduced the need for one off negotiations for every new exchange traded product and made approval timelines more predictable.

Predictability may not generate headlines, but it changes behavior. It lowers legal costs, shortens timelines, and makes firms more willing to launch products beyond the most obvious ones. It also makes advisers and institutions more comfortable allocating capital through standardized structures.

Tax treatment improved as well. The IRS introduced a staking safe harbor for certain trust structures, allowing proof of stake assets to generate yield without automatically breaking tax classification. That adjustment brought tax rules closer to how these networks actually operate.

 

Custody Finally Moved Into Focus

Custody has long been one of crypto’s most difficult issues.

Traditional finance is built around regulated custodians, clear chains of control, and established customer protection rules. Crypto does not fit neatly into that model, since control is defined by private keys rather than physical possession or centralized records.

In late 2025, regulators began addressing this gap more directly. The SEC provided guidance on how broker dealers should approach custody of crypto asset securities. Banking regulators outlined how institutions could apply to issue stablecoins through supervised subsidiaries.

These steps did not eliminate complexity, but they replaced ambiguity with process. In regulated markets, that distinction is crucial.

 

What Was Left Unfinished

Not everything was resolved.

The largest unresolved issue remains market structure, particularly the line between SEC and CFTC jurisdiction. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act advanced in Congress but did not become law in 2025. That uncertainty continues to influence how companies list tokens and design compliance programs.

Still, the fact that market structure legislation remained active suggests the debate has moved from whether crypto should be regulated to how best to finish the framework.

 

Why 2025 Mattered

Most of the regulatory changes in 2025 were not about enforcement actions or penalties. They were about building rules that allow institutions to participate without improvisation.

Stablecoins gained a federal framework. Investment products became more standardized. Custody moved closer to supervision rather than theory.

Taken together, these steps made crypto look less like a legal edge case and more like emerging financial infrastructure.

 

Looking Ahead

If 2025 was about laying groundwork, 2026 will be about implementation.

The next phase will involve rulemaking, supervision, and real world deployment. Stablecoin issuers will apply for licenses. Banks will test new payment rails. Product sponsors will launch under clearer standards.

The momentum from 2025 created something the U.S. crypto market has lacked for years: a sense that the rules, while still evolving, are becoming legible.

 

That may not satisfy everyone. But for a market that thrives on scale, clarity is often more valuable than certainty.

 

Where the Conversation Continues

For anyone trying to understand where crypto regulation and policy are actually headed, these conversations are no longer abstract. They are happening in real time, often face to face.

That is part of what makes Rare Evo stand out.

Rare Evo takes place July 28-31, 2026, in Las Vegas at The ARIA Resort & Casino, and has become one of the premier industry event where regulators, policymakers, and blockchain builders share the same room. It is not just a conference about price action or product launches. It is a place to hear directly from the people shaping policy, alongside the teams building the technology those policies will govern.

Panels and discussions at Rare Evo tend to focus on how regulation works in practice, what regulators are actually thinking, and how the industry can engage constructively rather than reactively. For anyone serious about long term adoption, it is one of the more valuable rooms to be in.

You can learn more about the event and purchase tickets at https://rareevo.io/buy-tickets

 

Alongside that conversation is the role of Rare PAC.

Rare PAC focuses on supporting policymakers who understand digital assets and who are willing to engage seriously with the work of building clear, workable rules in the United States. It is not about opposing regulation. It is about avoiding regulation by confusion or enforcement after the fact.

As 2026 approaches, the progress made in 2025 will only matter if it is protected and extended. That requires continued participation, education, and engagement from people who care about the future of crypto in the US.

For those interested in learning more or getting involved, information is available at https://rarepac.io

 

If 2025 was the year crypto regulation became practical, the next phase will depend on whether that momentum is carried forward. Conversations like the ones at Rare Evo, and efforts like Rare PAC, are part of how that happens.