US Marshals Probe $40M Alleged Theft of Seized Cryptocurrency
US Marshals Service confirmed an active investigation after social media claims that John Daghita, son of Command Services & Support (CMDSS) president Dean Daghita, accessed wallets holding government-seized crypto and moved roughly $40 million in assets. Crypto investigator ZachXBT traced wallets linked to Daghita: one holding about $23 million tied to seized assets from 2024–2025, and another containing 12,540 ETH (about $36 million at the time). ZachXBT reported one wallet to authorities and posted that he received a small portion (0.6767 ETH) allegedly sent from the seized funds; he said any recovered stolen funds would be forwarded to a US government seizure address. CMDSS won a 2024 contract with the US Marshals Service to custody seized crypto. The Marshals declined further comment. Data from BitcoinTreasuries.NET suggests US authorities may control up to 328,372 BTC via seizures. Key actors: US Marshals Service, CMDSS, John Daghita, ZachXBT. Key keywords: seized crypto, stolen crypto, US Marshals, CMDSS, John Daghita, ZachXBT, 12,540 ETH, $40M.
Bearish
Allegations that government-seized crypto was misappropriated by someone tied to the contractor responsible for custody introduces counterparty, custodial and regulatory risk. For traders this can: 1) increase short-term volatility — news of large transfers and investigations often triggers sell pressure and risk-off moves across crypto markets; 2) depress confidence in centralized custody solutions and custodial contracts, potentially increasing demand for self-custody and non-custodial services; 3) prompt regulatory scrutiny which can weigh on institutional flows into crypto. Historical parallels: thefts or breaches involving custodians (e.g., Mt. Gox fallout, Bitfinex-related seizures/losses) produced immediate price drops and elevated volatility, and led to longer-term shifts in custody preferences. If the investigation confirms misappropriation and leads to legal action, prolonged reputational damage to contractors and tighter custody controls could sustain bearish sentiment. Conversely, rapid recovery of funds and transparent remedial actions could limit lasting damage. Overall, expect short-term negative price pressure and higher volatility; medium-term impact depends on investigation outcomes and policy responses.