Deltec Bank and Trust Ltd, the Bahamas-based bank long associated with major crypto clients, is facing fresh legal scrutiny after a lawsuit accused it of secretly extending a $2 billion line of credit to Alameda Research. The complaint was reportedly filed by people who say they were harmed by the fraudulent conduct tied to Sam Bankman-Fried and the broader FTX collapse.
According to the allegations described in the report, Deltec did more than offer ordinary banking services. The bank is accused of giving Alameda a highly unusual advantage in stablecoin transactions by allowing the trading firm a three-day grace period to settle purchased stablecoins. Plaintiffs argue that this privilege was not available to other customers, making Alameda a specially favored client in a system that should have applied more consistent standards.
The lawsuit centers on stablecoin settlement advantages
At the heart of the case is the claim that Deltec helped facilitate Alameda’s purchases of tether and enabled the firm to operate with terms unavailable to the broader market. The complaint says that the credit arrangement allowed Alameda to profit from differences between the value of a stablecoin and the U.S. dollar. In practical terms, the lawsuit suggests Alameda could obtain stablecoins first and complete the dollar funding afterward, creating a window in which it could trade for profit before full settlement.
One of the most significant details comes from a declaration reportedly filed on Feb. 16 by former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison. In that filing, Ellison allegedly said Alameda could create USDT on credit through an unofficial Deltec line of credit and sell the tokens for a gain before depositing U.S. dollars into Tether’s Deltec account to fund the purchase. If proven, that description would point to a highly unusual operational setup between a bank, a stablecoin issuer’s banking channel, and one of the most important trading firms in the crypto industry prior to FTX’s failure.
Broader accusations: customer funds and preferential treatment
The legal claims do not stop at the credit line itself. Deltec is also accused of helping Sam Bankman-Fried misuse customer funds. In addition, the lawsuit alleges the bank exempted Alameda from certain rules and prioritized its withdrawals. These accusations are particularly serious because they frame Deltec not as a passive financial intermediary, but as a participant that may have provided exceptional accommodations while other clients were held to different standards.
For plaintiffs seeking damages, the argument appears to be that the alleged enablers of the FTX-Alameda system should also bear responsibility if they knowingly or improperly supported transactions that contributed to losses. While the allegations have not been proven in court, they add another layer to the continuing effort to map how FTX and Alameda maintained liquidity and market access before their dramatic collapse.
Deltec’s response and Tether’s silence
Deltec has pushed back against the narrative that it knowingly aided wrongdoing. A lawyer representing the bank at Venable LLP in Chicago reportedly said that neither Deltec nor its chairman, Jean Chalopin, knew of FTX’s misconduct before it became public. That statement is central to the bank’s likely defense: that even if it provided services to Alameda or related entities, it did not have knowledge of the fraudulent behavior taking place behind the scenes.
Tether’s legal representative, Stuart Hoegner, reportedly did not immediately respond to Bloomberg’s request for comment. The lack of an immediate public response leaves unanswered questions about how Tether may address allegations tied to settlement processes, banking relationships, and the role of Deltec in transactions involving USDT.
A separate $50 million loan raises more questions
The lawsuit also highlights another connection that could draw attention from market observers and litigants: Deltec itself reportedly received a $50 million loan from an entity controlled by Ryan Salame, a former FTX executive. While the report does not provide a judicial conclusion about the meaning of that loan, its inclusion in the complaint suggests plaintiffs are trying to establish a pattern of close financial relationships among institutions and executives linked to the FTX ecosystem.
In addition, the complaint reportedly points to text messages that appear to allege a close relationship between Tether CFO Giancarlo Devasini and Alameda traders. That claim, if explored further in court, could become important because it may speak to communication channels and levels of familiarity among major actors involved in stablecoin issuance, trading, and banking access during a period when Alameda was deeply embedded in crypto markets.
Why this case matters for crypto market structure
This lawsuit matters beyond the immediate parties because it touches on one of the crypto industry’s most sensitive issues: how large trading firms obtained liquidity, banking support, and stablecoin access. Stablecoins are a foundational part of crypto market plumbing, and any allegation that a favored firm was allowed to obtain tokens on credit or settle later than other customers raises concerns about fairness, risk management, and disclosure.
The case also reinforces a broader post-FTX theme. As courts, liquidators, and plaintiffs continue to examine the collapse, attention is increasingly shifting outward from Bankman-Fried and his closest associates to banks, service providers, issuers, and counterparties that may have played supporting roles. Even where criminal intent is not alleged or proven, the legal and reputational consequences of preferential treatment can be significant.
For now, the allegations remain claims in litigation, not established findings of fact. Still, the complaint adds to the growing body of legal challenges seeking to explain how Alameda was able to maintain privileged access to capital and settlement channels. If the case advances and more records become public, it could offer a clearer picture of how relationships between crypto firms and banking partners operated during one of the industry’s most consequential failures.