Practice Areas
How ConsensusIntel supports attorneys across the most common categories of cryptocurrency-related litigation.
The following case types represent the most common categories of digital asset disputes that arise in litigation. Each section describes the typical fact pattern, why blockchain evidence is technically complex in that context, and how ConsensusIntel can help. All scenarios are hypothetical and illustrative.
Divorce and Division of Digital Assets
Illustrative scenario
A divorcing spouse suspects the other party is concealing significant cryptocurrency holdings from mandatory financial disclosures. The disclosing party has listed small cryptocurrency amounts on financial disclosure forms, but bank records and exchange transaction history suggest substantially larger holdings. (Hypothetical example -- not a description of any actual case.)
Why does cryptocurrency complicate divorce proceedings?
Cryptocurrency is designed to be self-custodied and pseudonymous. A party can hold significant value in wallets that are completely off-exchange, leaving no bank records or tax documents. Discovery requests and interrogatories may not be answered accurately. The disclosing party may have transferred holdings to addresses the other spouse does not know about.
How can ConsensusIntel help in divorce matters?
Blockchain tracing can follow known addresses to identify connected wallets and estimate holding patterns. Exchange attribution can identify platforms where funds were on-ramped or off-ramped. ConsensusIntel can also advise on what to request in discovery and how to structure subpoenas to exchanges to maximize the evidentiary return.
Fraud Investigations: Rug Pulls, Ponzi Schemes, and Phishing
Illustrative scenario
A group of investors contributed cryptocurrency to a project that promised returns through a DeFi protocol. The project's developers withdrew all pooled funds and ceased communications. The investors retained counsel and are seeking to identify the developers and recover assets. (Hypothetical example.)
Why is cryptocurrency fraud particularly difficult to trace?
Cryptocurrency fraud often involves deliberate obfuscation. Funds may pass through multiple wallets, cross-chain bridges, DEX swaps, and mixing services before reaching an off-ramp where KYC data exists. The chain from initial fraud to identifiable exchange account can be technically complex.
How can ConsensusIntel help in fraud investigations?
Blockchain tracing follows the fraud proceeds across chains and protocols, identifying where funds ultimately landed and what exchanges received them. This analysis supports the subpoenas and Hague requests that may be necessary to obtain exchange KYC data. Expert declarations document the trace for court.
Business Disputes Involving Cryptocurrency Holdings
Illustrative scenario
Two business partners dissolve their partnership. One partner alleges the other diverted partnership cryptocurrency funds to personal wallets during the winding-down period. The diverted funds were in a treasury wallet the other partner had unilateral access to. (Hypothetical example.)
Why do business cryptocurrency disputes present unique forensic challenges?
Business cryptocurrency treasuries often have minimal internal controls compared to traditional bank accounts. Access controls, signing policies, and audit trails vary widely and may not exist at all for self-custodied wallets. Determining who authorized a transfer -- and whether that authorization was within the scope of the party's authority -- requires both technical and factual analysis.
How can ConsensusIntel help in business disputes?
Analysis of the treasury wallet's transaction history, signing key structure, and timing of disputed transfers. ConsensusIntel can identify whether the transfers followed prior patterns, whether they were consistent with known operational practices, and what the on-chain record shows about the sequence of events.
Bankruptcy and Cryptocurrency Holdings
Illustrative scenario
A bankruptcy trustee suspects the debtor failed to disclose significant cryptocurrency holdings. Bank records show fiat-to-crypto transfers in the months before filing. The debtor's bankruptcy schedules list no digital assets. (Hypothetical example.)
Why is cryptocurrency difficult to locate in bankruptcy proceedings?
Cryptocurrency holdings are frequently not disclosed in bankruptcy schedules, either due to misunderstanding of disclosure obligations or deliberate concealment. Unlike bank accounts, there is no central registry of cryptocurrency holdings. Locating assets requires combining on-chain analysis of known addresses with exchange subpoenas and, where necessary, examination of device forensics.
How can ConsensusIntel help bankruptcy trustees and counsel?
Starting from known addresses or identified exchanges, blockchain tracing can identify the scope of holdings at filing, document asset movements before the petition date (relevant to fraudulent conveyance analysis), and estimate current holdings if assets remain on-chain. ConsensusIntel can also advise trustees on which exchanges to subpoena and how to request records.
Sanctions and OFAC Compliance
Illustrative scenario
A financial institution receives a subpoena related to transactions that may have involved OFAC-sanctioned addresses. The institution needs to determine the scope of exposure and document its analysis methodology for regulators. (Hypothetical example.)
Why is sanctions exposure analysis technically complex in cryptocurrency contexts?
Sanctions compliance in cryptocurrency contexts requires understanding how blockchain transactions work -- including indirect exposure through intermediary addresses and protocol interactions. Direct and indirect OFAC exposure have different regulatory implications, and the distinction requires technical analysis to document clearly.
How can ConsensusIntel help with sanctions matters?
Technical analysis of transaction exposure to sanctioned addresses or entities, documented with reproducible methodology. Identification of direct versus indirect exposure. Documentation suitable for regulatory response and legal defense.
Inheritance and Probate: Cryptocurrency in Estates
Illustrative scenario
An estate executor discovers the decedent held significant cryptocurrency assets but left no instructions for accessing them. Hardware wallet devices have been located but the seed phrase or PIN is unknown. Exchange accounts have also been identified. (Hypothetical example.)
Why is cryptocurrency particularly challenging in estate administration?
Cryptocurrency held in self-custody is inaccessible without the private keys. Unlike a bank account, there is no account recovery process. Exchange-held assets are more accessible but require documentation of ownership and legal authority to claim. The value, extent, and accessibility of cryptocurrency assets in an estate can be extremely difficult to determine.
How can ConsensusIntel help executors and estate counsel?
Technical review of identified devices and accounts to determine what assets are held and in what custody arrangement. For exchange-held assets, analysis of available records and guidance on the documentation exchanges typically require for estate claims. For self-custody assets, assessment of recovery options based on the available information. Consultation on whether forensic analysis of devices is warranted and what it may yield.
Theft and Digital Asset Recovery
Illustrative scenario
A business's cryptocurrency treasury was compromised through a phishing attack that resulted in unauthorized transfers. The attack vector has been identified but the funds have moved through multiple wallets and protocols. Counsel is evaluating options for asset tracing and recovery. (Hypothetical example.)
Why is time-sensitive tracing critical in cryptocurrency theft matters?
Cryptocurrency theft typically involves rapid fund movement designed to obscure the trail. Funds often move through mixers, cross-chain bridges, and decentralized exchanges before reaching a centralized exchange where KYC data exists. The window for effective legal intervention -- particularly emergency injunctive relief -- is often narrow.
How can ConsensusIntel help in digital asset theft matters?
Rapid blockchain trace to identify where stolen funds have moved and whether they have reached a jurisdictionally accessible exchange. Documentation of the trace in a format suitable for TRO applications and exchange subpoenas. Time-sensitive analysis when emergency relief is being considered.
Smart Contract and Protocol Disputes
Illustrative scenario
A DeFi protocol suffered a significant exploit. Token holders filed suit against the protocol's development team, alleging the code defect was known or should have been known, and that the protocol was not audited adequately before deployment. (Hypothetical example.)
Why do smart contract disputes require specialized technical expertise?
Smart contract disputes require technical analysis at the bytecode and source code level. Understanding whether a vulnerability was exploitable under foreseeable conditions, whether an audit would have identified it, and whether the protocol behaved as documented versus as expected -- these are questions that require deep technical expertise in smart contract development.
How can ConsensusIntel help in smart contract and protocol disputes?
Technical review of the smart contract source code and deployment history. Analysis of the exploit transaction to determine how the vulnerability was triggered. Assessment of whether the defect was identifiable through standard audit procedures. Expert report and testimony explaining the technical findings to non-technical factfinders.
Exchange Account and Frozen Funds Disputes
Illustrative scenario
A customer's exchange account was frozen by the exchange following an automated compliance flag. The customer alleges the freeze was erroneous and the exchange's dispute process has not resolved the matter. Counsel is evaluating claims and the technical basis for the exchange's decision. (Hypothetical example.)
Why are exchange compliance decisions technically opaque?
Exchange compliance decisions involve automated systems, internal risk scoring, and AML processes that are not transparent to customers. Understanding what triggered the freeze, what evidence the exchange is relying on, and whether that evidence is technically sound requires knowledge of how exchange compliance systems work.
How can ConsensusIntel help in exchange dispute matters?
Technical review of the account's transaction history and the exchange's stated basis for the freeze. Assessment of the technical plausibility of the exchange's compliance rationale. Identification of what records should be requested in discovery and what they should contain. Expert declaration or testimony regarding exchange operations and compliance processes.
NFT Ownership and Provenance Disputes
Illustrative scenario
Following a divorce, the parties dispute whether a collection of high-value NFTs is marital property. One party claims the collection was acquired before the marriage and constitutes separate property. The other party contends the NFTs were acquired during the marriage using marital funds. The minting dates, purchase transactions, and wallet ownership history are all at issue. (Hypothetical example.)
Why is technical analysis necessary to establish NFT ownership and provenance?
NFT ownership exists on-chain as a record of which address controls a given token. Establishing when an NFT was acquired, with whose funds, and whether a given address is controlled by a specific party requires combining on-chain analysis with off-chain evidence.
How can ConsensusIntel help in NFT ownership disputes?
Analysis of the on-chain ownership and transfer history for the disputed NFTs. Attribution of the controlling addresses to the relevant parties using available exchange records and transaction patterns. Timeline documentation suitable for use in contested property hearings.
Questions About Working with a Blockchain Forensic Expert
Yes. ConsensusIntel is based in St. Louis, Missouri, but provides services nationwide via remote consulting. Blockchain evidence does not have geographic boundaries -- the analysis is the same regardless of where the case is venued.
Timeline depends on the scope of the matter, the complexity of the transaction patterns, and the availability of corroborating evidence. A focused tracing analysis may take days; a comprehensive analysis spanning multiple chains, bridges, and exchanges may take several weeks. ConsensusIntel scopes each engagement before accepting it and provides timeline estimates up front.
That is exactly what the initial consultation is for. ConsensusIntel can review the available facts, identify what blockchain evidence likely exists, and give an honest assessment of whether forensic analysis is likely to produce useful results. Not every matter warrants a full engagement -- sometimes the most useful early advice is a scoping conversation.
Yes. All information submitted during the intake process is treated as confidential. ConsensusIntel conducts a conflict check before accepting any engagement. Information is not shared with third parties. Submitting an inquiry does not create a consulting engagement -- that requires a separate written agreement.
Yes. ConsensusIntel can provide technical consulting and expert support in criminal matters involving cryptocurrency evidence. This includes working with defense counsel on technical analysis and with prosecutors or law enforcement as a retained expert.
Ready to Discuss a Matter?
Initial consultations are confidential. We conduct a conflict check before accepting any engagement.
Or email [email protected] directly.