Alamo Title Company v. Dasol Holdings, Inc et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CASE NO. 1:25-cv-10478-ALC
ALAMO TITLE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DASOL HOLDINGS, INC.,
CITIBANK N.A., a nominal defendant,
PAYWARD, INC. d/b/a KRAKEN, a nominal
defendant, and PAYWARD INTERACTIVE,
INC., a nominal defendant,
Defendants.
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for a Temporary Restraining Order and for Expedited Discovery. For the
reasons set below, the Court GRANTS the motion.
On December 18, 2025, this Court determined that Plaintiff demonstrated through its
verified complaint that it has a likelihood of success in proving that funds wired by Plaintiff as
part of a real estate refinancing transaction were fraudulently diverted by agents, representatives,
or associates of Defendant Dasol Holdings, Inc. a/k/a Dasol Holding, Inc. (“Dasol”) to a
bank account at Defendant Citibank, N.A. (“Truist”) ending in 7736 in the name of “Gary V.
Olsen dba Dasol Holding, Inc. (the “Citibank Account”); that Plaintiff would suffer
immediate and irreparable harm if Dasol and its agents, representatives, and associates were
not enjoined from dissipating assets from the Citibank Account obtained through the fraud, and
if Citibank was not directed to freeze any accounts into which proceeds from the fraudulent
diversion were placed; that the balance of harms favors Plaintiff, as Plaintiff has an interest in
the funds and the Citibank
Case 0:26-cv-60652-RS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/02/2026 Page 1 of 5

2
Account would be preserved during the pendency of this proceeding; that it is in the public
interest to enjoin activity in the Citibank Account to prevent Defendant Dasol’s gain from
fraudulently diverted funds; and that because notice of these proceedings provided to Dasol prior
to the issuance of a temporary restraining order or order granting a preliminary injunction would
make it likely that monies may be transferred, hidden or disposed of by Dasol, its agents,
representative, or associates, granting this Temporary Restraining Order without notice is
appropriate.
In granting Plaintiff’s motion in its entirety, the Court therefore ordered that Defendant
Citibank, and its agents, employees, and representatives, was and is enjoined from facilitating or
allowing any withdrawal, transfer, or disposition of its wired funds presently held in the Citibank
account ending in ending in 7736, according to the false wire instructions, held in the name of
“Gary V. Olsen dba Dasol Holding, Inc.”, which Citibank records state is actually owned in the
name of “Dasol Holdings, Inc.” (the “Citibank Account”), and any and all accounts into which
those funds were transferred, and Citibank is required to maintain the funds in the Citibank
Account, and any other accounts at Citibank Bank into which monies from the Citibank Account
may have been transferred, until further Order of the Court, unless and until Citibank transfers
and returns the funds to Plaintiff in accordance with Plaintiff’s wire recall.
Documents produced by Citibank in response to Plaintiff’s Expedited Discovery
Requests demonstrate that the Citibank Account is held in the name of “Dasol Holdings, Inc.”,
a Florida limited liability company and that the moneys in the Citibank Account were
transferred into an account owned by “Payward Interactive, Inc.”, possibly ending in 4527, that
is maintained with Defendant, Dart Financial Corporation d/b/a The Dart Bank (the
“Payward Account”) on December 5, 2025. Defendant, Payward, Inc. d/b/a Kraken is a
Delaware corporation that operates the cryptocurrency exchange along with its affiliate,
Payward Interactive, Inc., which owns the
Case 0:26-cv-60652-RS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/02/2026 Page 2 of 5

3
Payward Account wallets and accounts (the “Payward Account”) (Payward, Inc. and Payward
Interactive, Inc. are referred to collectively as the “Payward Entities”). On December 5, 2025,
Dasol, through its agents, representatives, officers, and employees (the “Dasol Bad Actors”)
transferred the misappropriated Sale Proceeds out of the Citibank Account into the Payward
Account through three separate wire transactions in the respective amounts of $570,890.00,
$450,720.00, ad $240,000.
Through Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction and for Expedited Discovery and its Verified First Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has a likelihood of success in proving that funds wired by
Plaintiff as part of a real estate sale transaction were fraudulently diverted by the Dasol Bad
Actors from the Citibank Account to the Payward Account at Dart and, from there, into
accounts and cryptocurrency wallets owned by the Dasol Bad Actors through the Kraken
cryptocurrency exchange owned and operated by the Payward Entities; that Plaintiff would
suffer immediate and irreparable harm if the owner(s) of the Payward Account and any
cryptocurrency wallets and accounts owned by the Dasol Bad Actors with the Payward Entities
and any other accounts and cryptocurrency wallets into which the misappropriated funds were
transferred, and their agents, representatives, and associates were not enjoined from
dissipating assets from the Payward Account and any associated cryptocurrency wallets and
other accounts obtained through the fraud, and if the Payward Entities and Dart are not
directed to freeze any accounts or cryptocurrency wallets into which proceeds from the
fraudulent diversion were placed; that the balance of harms favors Plaintiff, as Plaintiff has an
interest in the funds transferred from the Citibank Account to the Payward Account at Dart and
any accounts or cryptocurrency wallets maintained with either or both of the Payward and that
those accounts and cryptocurrency wallets would be preserved
Case 0:26-cv-60652-RS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/02/2026 Page 3 of 5

4
during the pendency of this proceeding; that it is in the public interest to enjoin activity in the
Payward Account and any accounts or cryptocurrency wallets into which the fraudulently
misappropriated funds were transferred or dissipated to prevent the Dasol Bad Actors’ gain from
fraudulently diverted funds; and that because notice of these proceedings provided to the Dasol
Bad Actors prior to the issuance of a temporary restraining order would make it likely that monies
may be transferred, hidden or disposed of by the Dasol Bad Actors, granting this Temporary
Restraining Order without notice is appropriate.
Having found that the requirements of Rule 65 have been satisfied, the Court therefore
orders that Defendants the Payward Entities and Dart and their respective agents, employees, and
representatives are enjoined from facilitating or allowing any withdrawal, transfer, trading or
disposition of funds presently held in the Payward Account at Dart, and any and all accounts and
cryptocurrency wallets into which those funds were transferred, including those maintained or held
at or through the Payward Entities, and that the Payward Entities and Dart are required to maintain
the funds in the Payward Account, and any other accounts or cryptocurrency wallets into which
monies from the Payward Account may have been transferred or dissipated, until further Order of
the Court, unless and until the Payward Entities and Dart voluntarily honor the wire recalls issued
at Plaintiff’s request such that the funds may ultimately be returned to Plaintiff with Plaintiff’s
consent and without need for further Order of this Court. Further, the Payward Entities and Dart
are required to trace any transfers or disbursement of the Sale Proceeds and to identify any and all
banks and accounts and cryptocurrency wallets to which any such funds were transferred or
disbursed.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Expedited Discovery is hereby
GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted leave to serve the Payward Entities and Dart with the proposed
Case 0:26-cv-60652-RS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/02/2026 Page 4 of 5

5
It is further ORDERED that:
1. The security requirement under Rule 65(c) previously posted by Plaintiff shall remain in place
and shall satisfy the requirements of Rule 65(c) with respect to this Order granting Plaintiff’s
Second Motion;
2. Defendants shall show cause in writing as to why a preliminary injunction should not issue by
January 8, 2026, and any reply from Plaintiff will be due by January 10, 2026 The preliminary
injunction hearing will be expedited;
3. The preliminary injunction hearing will be consolidated with the telephonic hearing currently
scheduled for January 12, 2026 at 4 p.m.; a hearing on the merits;
4. The Motion and relief are granted ex parte;
5. The consolidated preliminary injunction hearing and hearing on the merits shall be held at a
time to be set by the Court; and
6. This Temporary Restraining Order shall remain in effect until after the consolidated
preliminary injunction hearings and hearing on the merits at a time to be set by the Court.
7. Nothing in this Order shall enjoin Defendants Citibank, N.A., Payward, Inc. d/b/a Kraken,
Payward Interactive, Inc., or Dart Financial Corporation d/b/a The Dart Bank from honoring
the wire recalls issued and returning the diverted funds to Citibank and/or Plaintiff prior to
further Order from this Court. Further, Defendants are hereby ordered to comply with those
wire recalls.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr.
Dated:
Requests for Production of Documents attached to its Motion as Exhibits A-C. Defendants
Payward, Inc., Payward Interactive, Inc., and Dart Financial Corporation d/b/a The Dart Bank are
hereby ORDERED to respond to those discovery requests and to produce any non-privileged
documents responsive thereto upon Plaintiff within three (3) days of the date of service.
Plaintiff is ordered to serve this Order, Plaintiff’s motions, the
Summons, and the Verified Complaint on Defendants by 5:00PM
on January 3, 2026.
January 2, 2026
Case 0:26-cv-60652-RS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/02/2026 Page 5 of 5