Loading ForensicBlock
Preparing your blockchain forensics platform...
Preparing your blockchain forensics platform...
Work with whatever intelligence your firm already relies on. We do not ask you to replace a platform, argue a renewal, or move a workflow — we take what it produced, preserve what was relied on, and carry it the rest of the way to a production.
Said first, before you ask
What we do not claim is that we parse every vendor's proprietary format into our own graph — that is a different capability, and saying otherwise would be a promise the intake gate could not keep.
We check the arithmetic, not their attribution. That is the half a public ledger can settle — and it is the half nobody else is checking.
Each of these arrives at intake as evidence rather than as an attachment — typed by source, hashed before anything parses it, custody recorded from the moment your firm received it.
A blockchain-intelligence report
from any platform your firm already uses
An exchange's response
the CSV or PDF that comes back from a compliance team
A subpoena return
recorded with the authority it was issued under
A government record
a designation list, a filing, an agency production
A reviewer's own working file
the spreadsheet a human analyst built by hand
A capture from the open record
an explorer page or public post, captured with its time
An examiner's note
the analyst's own observation, attributed to them
A statement from a third party
attributed to whoever made it, never to us
Five acts. Three of them you can test right now without an account.
A report from any blockchain-intelligence platform, an exchange's records response, a subpoena return, a government record, or the spreadsheet your analyst built by hand.
Each arrives as evidence rather than as an attachment: typed by source, hashed before anything parses it, custody recorded from the moment your firm received it, with privilege and licence captured. Nothing asks you to replace a platform, argue a renewal, or move a workflow.
Needs a matter. Taking custody means writing to a matter — so this one starts once there is a matter to write to. It is the first act of an engagement, not a public tool.
An export from a system we have never seen is still readable, because a person names the column rather than a matcher guessing it.
The reader offers the file's own headers and you say which one is the transaction hash. Two fields naming one column is refused outright, and a mapping that names a header the file does not carry is reported rather than quietly dropped.
What this does not claim: We do not fuzzy-match. Mapping a column called “Amount” to a coin amount when it holds dollars would reconcile currency against satoshis across four hundred rows of a document going into a motion — so the reader stops and asks.
We never restate someone else's conclusion as our finding.
Four rails, each enforced where the claim is composed rather than where it is displayed — so no render site has to remember them and no two can word one finding differently.
What this does not claim: We do not re-derive a vendor's attribution or entity names. Attribution is their catalog. We check the arithmetic — which is the half a chain can settle and an opinion cannot.
Opposing counsel verifies it in a browser with no account — or, from the bundle sitting in the matter folder, with our servers switched off entirely.
Every record is SHA-256 sealed and hash-chained, independently timestamped under RFC 3161 with its full certificate chain shipped alongside, and anchored to Bitcoin through OpenTimestamps. The methodology is published and versioned and carries its own content hash, so a filing cites a specific version rather than “the page as it was that day”.
What this does not claim: It does not require nothing — it requires nothing of ours. Checking the anchor needs a Bitcoin block header, readable from any node or explorer, and checking the token needs the timestamping authority's published root or your own certificate store.
Not a report a court has to take on faith — an exhibit with a number, a custody record and a seal the recipient can check.
A matter-scoped register where an allocated number can never be changed or reused, enforced by the database rather than by application code. A fund-flow diagram derived deterministically from the record, so anyone holding it regenerates the same picture instead of trusting a screenshot. And a reconciliation of the schedule the other side served against the public ledger — the exhibit a motion to compel attaches.
What this does not claim: Self-authentication under FRE 902(13)/(14) is not admissibility. It clears one hurdle; a judge decides the rest, and we never say otherwise.
Four rules, kept apart because they fail in different directions. Each is enforced where the claim is composed rather than where it is displayed — so no screen has to remember them, and no two screens can word one finding differently.
A name from one vendor feed is marked an unverified single-source lead — everywhere it appears.
The marker rides inside the composed name rather than in a note beside it, because a note is the first thing a character limit drops. A name that reaches a court without its qualifier is a vendor's opinion wearing our authority.
A single-source name never addresses served legal process.
Process goes to “the operator of 0x…” unless two independent sources agree on who that is. Naming the wrong company in a served letter is unrecoverable; naming none is one more thing for counsel to establish.
A designation carries the date it was made and the authority that made it.
Sanctions change. Tornado Cash was delisted in March 2025. A present-tense designation with no date is a claim that quietly expires, and the expiry is what opposing counsel finds.
A field nobody compared is stated as uncompared, never left to read as agreement.
If we could not recognise the column holding their amounts, the letter says the amount was never read — in either record. Silence about a field is the easiest way for a reconciliation to overstate what it checked.
Bring your own intelligence. We own the custody, the verification, and the exhibit.
Investigation answers 'what happened.' Forensics answers 'can you prove it to a court.' We produce the exhibit.