Crypto asset recovery for law enforcement.
Blockchain forensics support for investigators and prosecutors: fund-flow reconstruction, entity attribution with stated confidence, and evidence written to survive disclosure and cross-examination.
We are an analytical provider. We hold no police powers and no statutory authority. We cannot seize, freeze, arrest, compel or search, and we do not represent ourselves as able to.
What we produce is analysis an authority can act on, with its reasoning and its uncertainty both on the record.
How does blockchain forensics support law enforcement?
Blockchain forensics reconstructs how funds moved between addresses and services, attributes activity to known entities with a stated confidence level, and identifies the regulated service where an investigative request can realistically be directed. It produces analytical evidence for warrants, disclosure and court. It does not itself seize, freeze or compel anything.
What we can provide to an investigation.
Fund-flow reconstruction
Transaction paths across addresses, bridges and services on supported networks, with every hop referenced to the underlying on-chain record so the analysis can be independently reproduced.
Attribution with confidence levels
Clustering and entity attribution presented with the heuristic used and the confidence it warrants — not as bare assertion. Where a label is inferred rather than observed, the report says so.
Intervention-point identification
Identification of the regulated services along a path, so a request for records or a preservation demand can be directed to a party who can actually act on it.
Evidentiary reporting
Reports structured for disclosure: methodology stated, data sources identified, limitations declared, and findings separated from inference. What a report contains.
Monitoring and alerting
Continuous monitoring of addresses of interest, with alerting on movement and exposure change during a live investigation.
Review of third-party analysis
Independent assessment of blockchain analysis produced by another party, including whether its stated confidence is supported by the underlying data.
The limits, stated before you rely on us.
An analytical provider that does not publish its constraints is a liability in a proceeding, not an asset.
What we cannot do
Where analysis degrades
Each of these is documented in our published research rather than discovered mid-proceeding.
Evidentiary standards we hold ourselves to.
| Standard | How it is met |
|---|---|
| Reproducibility | Every figure traces to an on-chain record another analyst can independently verify. No conclusion rests on a proprietary number that cannot be checked. |
| Stated methodology | Reports name the heuristics applied and the assumptions behind them, so the method can be examined rather than merely the conclusion. |
| Confidence expression | Findings are graded. Observed facts, supported inferences and speculation are separated and labelled, never blended into a single assertion. |
| Declared limitations | Every report states what it does not establish. A trace that ends at a mixer is reported as ending at a mixer. |
| Chain of custody | Evidence handling is logged, versioned and attributable, so the provenance of an exhibit can be demonstrated. |
| Model governance | Risk model weights and bands are published and versioned, so a score produced on one date can be explained on a later one. |
Every address, hash, score and case identifier shown in our product interface is synthetic, illustrative data, marked as such. We publish no success rates, recovered-funds totals or case counts. If a figure is not evidenced, we do not publish it — a standard we would rather be held to in a witness box than have to explain.