Litigation-Grade Blockchain Intelligence.

ConsensusIntel handles matters involving cryptocurrency holdings, blockchain transactions, smart contracts, and digital asset disputes. This includes divorce proceedings where digital assets may be concealed or contested, fraud investigations involving rug pulls, Ponzi schemes, or phishing, bankruptcy matters, inheritance disputes, civil and commercial litigation involving exchanges and DeFi protocols, and NFT ownership disputes.

Early involvement is generally preferable. An expert can identify what blockchain evidence exists and is preservable, advise on steps to prevent evidence loss, and assist in scoping discovery before significant time has passed. Engaging an expert after improper handling of digital evidence, or after the opposing party has had time to move funds, limits what is recoverable and admissible.

It depends on the specific transaction patterns and available corroborating evidence. Public blockchains are transparent -- all transactions are permanently recorded and publicly visible. However, tracing those transactions to specific individuals or entities requires additional evidence such as exchange KYC records, IP logs, or device forensics. Blockchain analysis can identify fund flows and address patterns with confidence; attribution to a specific person requires corroboration.

An expert report documents the scope of the analysis, the evidence reviewed and its source, the methodology applied, the findings, and the conclusions -- stated at the confidence level the evidence supports. ConsensusIntel's reports are structured to be reproducible: a qualified analyst given the same inputs should be able to independently verify or challenge each step.

All submitted information is treated as confidential. ConsensusIntel conducts a conflict check before accepting any engagement. Information is not shared with third parties without written authorization. Submitting an inquiry form does not create a consulting engagement -- that requires a separate written agreement.

Yes. ConsensusIntel provides full litigation support including expert declarations, depositions, and trial testimony. Reports are prepared with testimony in mind, structured to withstand cross-examination and Daubert or Frye challenges.

A brief description of the matter, the relevant timeframe, the jurisdiction, any known wallet addresses or exchange accounts involved, and what you are trying to establish or challenge. Complete information is not necessary at the outset -- part of the initial consultation is scoping what evidence exists and what analysis is feasible.

Yes, though with important limitations. Privacy-focused protocols and mixing services reduce attribution confidence and must be analyzed differently. ConsensusIntel can analyze available transaction data around privacy-preserving steps and document the analytical limitations clearly. Accurately representing limitations is part of credible forensic work -- overstating conclusions weakens rather than strengthens a case.

Controlling a blockchain address and legally owning the assets it holds are distinct questions. On-chain forensics can establish that a specific private key was used to sign transactions and that address activity is consistent with control by a particular individual or entity. Legal ownership — whether the holder had rightful title to the assets — is a separate legal question requiring facts beyond the chain: agreements, provenance documentation, and contextual evidence about how the assets were acquired or transferred. ConsensusIntel establishes control; ownership is for the court to determine.

Cryptocurrency values fluctuate significantly, so the applicable conversion date matters for damages calculations. Different legal theories may call for the value at the time of the wrong, the time of judgment, or the highest intervening value. ConsensusIntel calculates and documents values at multiple reference dates — transaction date, discovery date, filing date, and report date — using exchange rate records from verifiable sources, allowing retaining counsel to apply whichever valuation methodology the applicable legal standard requires.

ConsensusIntel can identify which foreign exchange or custodian received the funds based on on-chain fingerprinting and provide the technical analysis needed to support a legal process request. Obtaining records from a foreign exchange requires legal process in that jurisdiction — typically a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) request in criminal matters, or letters rogatory in civil matters. Some exchanges cooperate voluntarily with properly scoped requests from U.S. counsel. ConsensusIntel can advise on the technical elements of the request once the exchange is identified.

Blockchain analysis alone can establish: that specific transactions occurred, when they occurred, the amounts involved, what addresses sent and received funds, the sequence of transactions, and whether funds from a specific source reached a specific destination address. It cannot, by itself, establish who controlled any given address, whether a person was acting knowingly or under instruction, or legal conclusions about ownership or intent. Attribution to a specific individual always requires corroborating evidence from off-chain sources.