CustodyStress
Archive › Vendor lockout
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01401

A US federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on approximately March 5, 2026

Indeterminate
Case description
In February 2025, Chicago-based crypto lender BlockFills suspended all client withdrawals and disclosed it had incurred approximately $75 million in losses. The firm, which had processed over $60 billion in trading volume in 2025 serving approximately 2,000 institutional clients, halted withdrawals without a clear timeline for restoration. Creditor Dominion Capital filed suit alleging that BlockFills had misappropriated client crypto assets and commingled funds. A US federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on approximately March 5, 2026 freezing BlockFills' assets and preventing the movement of approximately 70 BTC belonging to Dominion. An insolvency professional described the company as 'hurtling towards bankruptcy.'
Custody context
Stress conditionVendor lockout
Custody systemExchange custody
OutcomeIndeterminate
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2025
CountryUnited States
Structural dependencies observed
Institutional cooperation required
What this illustrates
Getting access back required help from an institution — and that help wasn't available. It's not clear whether anyone ever regained access.
Outcome interpretation
Not enough information is available to determine the outcome.
Source
Publicly Reported
Evidence type
News article
Evidence link
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/03/05/u-s-judge-freezes-blockfills-assets-in-dispute-over-70-bitcoin-with-creditor-dominion-capital
Related cases involving vendor lockout
FTX announced a third distribution of approximately $1.6 billion on September 30, 2025.
Exchange custody · 2025 Survives
Binance announced new identity verification requirements for all users as part of
Exchange custody · 2025 Constrained
Institutional lockout — exchange custody (2025)
Exchange custody · 2025 Constrained
170 cases involve vendor lockout 512 cases involve exchange custody View archive statistics →
This archive documents observed custody survivability failures. It does not attempt to document all Bitcoin losses or security incidents. Submit a case
← All cases
Framework references
Where Bitcoin Custody Intersects Legal and Fiduciary Authority
Where custody creates gaps in estate planning, fiduciary duty, and professional responsibility.
Professional Scope Boundary Matrix
What each professional or product covers, what they do not, and where gaps form between them.
The Independent Assessment Layer in Bitcoin Custody
How independent diagnostic layers emerge when multiple parties depend on shared infrastructure.
Terms guide
Outcome terms
Survives
Access remained possible under the reported conditions.
Constrained
Access remained possible, but only with delay, dependence, or significant difficulty.
Blocked
Access was not possible under the reported conditions.
Indeterminate
There was not enough information to determine the outcome.
Structural terms
Single-person knowledge
Recovery depended on information or capability held by one individual who was unavailable.
Institutional dependence
Recovery depended on a third-party institution or service that was inaccessible or uncooperative.
Documentation gap
Recovery depended on instructions that were missing, incomplete, or unclear.
Authority mismatch
The person with legal authority to act did not have operational access, or vice versa.
Original text
Rate this translation
Your feedback will be used to help improve Google Translate