Solutions / Investigation teams

Law Enforcement

Start an investigation-tool evaluation with a defined question, authorized scope, and a clear account of what the evidence needs to explain.

Discuss Your Requirements All Solutions

Capabilities require confirmation. Workflows are illustrative and benefits are goals to validate, not proven FinTrace Intelligence outcomes.

For investigation-team evaluation

Challenges to address

For an investigation-team evaluation, define the question and the information already available before discussing a tool. Explain what the team needs to examine and how the work would be reviewed. This page is not a claim of law-enforcement customers, access to non-public records, asset recovery, or evidentiary acceptance in any jurisdiction.

  • Separating a lead from a finding

    Explain which information starts the inquiry and which assertions still need examination. Ask how a proposed output would distinguish observed relationships from interpretation.

    • Starting from a wallet or transaction reference
    • Distinguishing observations from interpretation

  • Keeping the inquiry in scope

    Describe the activity, time period, and authorized information relevant to the evaluation. Identify what would be outside the intended inquiry.

    • Following related fund movements
    • Recording unknown or uncertain relationships

  • Preserving context across a handover

    A different investigator or reviewer may need the original question, references, and unresolved points. Define the record your process requires.

    • Transferring work to another authorized reviewer

These are illustrative scenarios to frame a discussion. No non-public data access, asset recovery, or evidentiary acceptance is claimed by this page.

An investigation workspace

Investigation graph workspace

Select a node to see its role, asset, amount, timestamp, risk indicator, and confidence. Toggle a connection type to focus the trace. All figures, entities, and observations shown are illustrative demo data, not information about a real inquiry.

Within authorized scope: CASE-2024-0091 (example) · see Authorized Scope

Selected evidence (pinned)
Starting wallet(example)Wallet A(example)Wallet B(example)EXExchange(example)Account ref.(example)Related wallet(example)Unverified ref.(example)

Illustrative demo data with a fictional starting address. Nothing shown is a real inquiry.

The investigation boundary

Authorized scope

A defensible inquiry starts with a written boundary: who is authorized to work it, what it starts from, and what falls outside it. This illustrative scope record is the reference point for every other section on this page.

Authorized scopeCASE-2024-0091
Scope confirmed
Investigation question
Illustrative cross-border tracing inquiry (example)
Authorized users
Named investigators and reviewers (example)
Starting references
1 wallet address (example)
Networks and assets
Illustrative network · native asset (example)
Date range
2024-01 to 2024-03 (example)
Transaction boundaries
Up to 4 hops from the starting address (example)
Permitted evidence
Ledger data and named source references (example)
Excluded activity
Unrelated addresses and out-of-window activity (example)

This scope defines what is in view for this inquiry. The graph, evidence, and timeline shown throughout this page fall within it; anything outside it is excluded by design, not by omission.

For the evidence record

Evidence and chain of custody

Each item a reviewer relies on should carry its own source, timestamp, custody, and verification status. This illustrates the fields a chain-of-custody record might track.

1EVID-014 (example)Transaction recordPreserved
Source
On-chain ledger export (example)
Collection timestamp
2024-03-01 09:31 (example)
Collected by
Supporting analyst (example)
Related transaction or address
Deposit address cluster (example)
Notes
Deposit transaction from wallet B to the exchange deposit address.
Review history
1 review, 2024-03-05 (example)
Export history
Not exported (example)
Integrity / verification status
Checksum recorded at collection (example)
2EVID-015 (example)Attribution referenceAttributed
Source
Prior disclosure (example)
Collection timestamp
2024-03-04 11:02 (example)
Collected by
Evidence officer (example)
Related transaction or address
ACCT-4471 (example)
Notes
Links the exchange deposit address to a named account reference. Source is not independently confirmed.
Review history
Pending senior review (example)
Export history
Not exported (example)
Integrity / verification status
Source document retained separately (example)
3EVID-016 (example)Analyst noteUncertain
Source
Analyst working notes (example)
Collection timestamp
2024-03-06 15:40 (example)
Collected by
Supporting analyst (example)
Related transaction or address
Possible related wallet (example)
Notes
Shared timing pattern observed; treated as a lead, not a confirmed relationship.
Review history
Not yet reviewed (example)
Export history
Not exported (example)
Integrity / verification status
Working note, not yet finalized (example)

No claim of legal status. No legal admissibility, immutability, or court acceptance is claimed for any record shown here. Confirm evidentiary and chain-of-custody requirements with your own legal and technical specialists before relying on an exported record.

From lead to report

Investigation timeline

A synchronized record of who did what, and when, from the first lead to the finished report. Each event carries a role, a timestamp, and enough context for a later reviewer to follow it.

  1. Lead investigator

    Initial lead received

    A wallet reference is received as the starting point for the inquiry.

  2. Lead investigator

    Address added

    The starting address is added to the inquiry and the authorized scope.

  3. Supporting analyst

    Transaction path expanded

    Related transfers are traced outward from the starting address.

  4. Supporting analyst

    Entity reference reviewed

    A referenced entity is checked against available source material.

  5. Evidence officer

    Evidence pinned

    A transaction and an attribution reference are marked for the evidence record.

  6. Supporting analyst

    Analyst note added

    An observation is logged against the pinned evidence.

  7. Administrator

    Reviewer assigned

    A senior reviewer is assigned to the inquiry.

  8. Senior reviewer

    Finding documented

    The reviewed conclusion, with its open questions, is written into the record.

  9. Senior reviewer

    Report generated

    A report is prepared for authorized recipients.

Illustrative sequence with sample roles and timestamps.

Product topics

Relevant capabilities to evaluate

These product topics are relevant to the discussion. Follow each link for evaluation questions and the scope still requiring verification; a link does not confirm an available integration.

  1. Authorized inquiry
  2. Transaction tracing
  3. Managed investigative case
  4. Evidence review
  5. Documented report

A demo outline

An illustrative review workflow

Use this outline to explain your process during a demo. It describes human evaluation steps, not confirmed software automation.

  1. 1

    Define an authorized inquiry

    State the question and who is authorized to work it.

  2. 2

    Establish scope and starting evidence

    Fix the boundary and the reference the inquiry starts from.

  3. 3

    Trace relevant blockchain activity

    Follow fund movements outward from the starting reference.

  4. 4

    Review attribution and uncertainty

    Weigh sourced attributions against possible and unverified links.

  5. 5

    Preserve important evidence

    Pin the transactions and references the record depends on.

  6. 6

    Record findings and open questions

    Write down the conclusion and what remains unresolved.

  7. 7

    Hand over or prepare the review record

    Assemble the record for the next reviewer or recipient.

Illustrative seven-step sequence with sample interfaces.

  • Keep in view · 01

    Define an authorized sample inquiry

    Use fictional or approved non-sensitive material to explain the question and intended scope. Do not submit active-case evidence through the public demo form.

  • Keep in view · 02

    Review available analysis in context

    Ask for a demonstration that distinguishes observed information, interpretations, and limitations. No identity attribution or recovery result should be assumed.

  • Keep in view · 03

    Document findings and open questions

    Describe how your team would record the analysis and route it through its own review procedures, including any further verification required.

Who carries the inquiry

Investigator handover

A case can pass between several people before it is closed. This grid illustrates how a lead investigator, a supporting analyst, a senior reviewer, an evidence officer, and an administrator might share assignments, notes, unresolved questions, evidence references, review status, and timestamps.

Illustrative investigator handover roles
RoleAssignmentsNotesUnresolved questionsEvidence referencesReview statusTimestamps
Lead investigator
Owns the inquiry from the first lead onward.		LeadsContributesContributesContributesContributes
Supporting analyst
Traces activity and logs observations.		ContributesLeadsContributesContributesContributes
Senior reviewer
Reviews the finding and signs off the record.		ContributesContributesLeadsLeads
Evidence officer
Pins and tracks the evidence record.		ContributesLeadsContributes
Administrator
Manages accounts, access, and assignment.		ContributesLeads
Leads · primary owner of that decision

Illustrative roles and ownership. The exact roles and permissions your organization needs are requirements to confirm, not a fixed feature set.

Evaluation objectives

Potential benefits to validate

These are intended outcomes for your evaluation, not measured product results. Compare any available demonstration with your own requirements before drawing a conclusion.

Clearer separation of observations and conclusions

Evaluate whether a reviewer can follow what the material shows and which interpretations need additional evidence.

Validation questionCan a reviewer tell what was observed apart from what was concluded, without asking you?

More understandable handovers

Assess whether the next reviewer can reconstruct the inquiry from the proposed notes and references.

Validation questionCould a new reviewer pick up this inquiry from the notes alone?

A more focused tool evaluation

Validate the fit against a specific investigation question. No recovery rate, identification outcome, or court acceptance is promised.

Validation questionDoes the demo answer your specific tracing question, or does it imply broader guarantees?

Product verification

Scope and evidence still needed

[Placeholder: verified investigation functions, tracing coverage, attribution methodology, evidence handling, export options, access controls, and available deployment arrangements.]

  • Ask · 01

    Verified investigative functions

    Which named functions are confirmed, not proposed?

  • Ask · 02

    Supported networks and assets

    Which networks and assets are actually covered?

  • Ask · 03

    Transaction-tracing depth

    How many hops and how far back can tracing go?

  • Ask · 04

    Attribution methodology

    How is an attribution reached and how confident is it?

  • Ask · 05

    Evidence handling

    How is evidence collected, stored, and tracked?

  • Ask · 06

    Export formats

    What export formats does a review or report need?

  • Ask · 07

    Access controls

    Who can access an inquiry, and how is that enforced?

  • Ask · 08

    Audit history

    Is every action on a case logged and reviewable?

  • Ask · 09

    Deployment requirements

    What access and deployment model does your organization require?

  • Ask · 10

    Jurisdiction-specific legal review

    Has your own legal team confirmed use in your jurisdiction?

These are requirements to confirm, not guaranteed capabilities.

Before your demo

Questions from Law Enforcement

Can the platform recover stolen funds?

No recovery function or recovery outcome is claimed. Ask the team to distinguish available software from any separately confirmed service.

Are outputs accepted as evidence in court?

No evidentiary acceptance is promised. Any applicable assessment belongs to the responsible legal and investigative specialists.

Should I send case evidence with a demo request?

Use a high-level description and avoid sensitive evidence, credentials, or unnecessary personal information. Ask the team to confirm an appropriate channel before sharing case material.

Start a conversation

Discuss your investigation-tool requirements

Bring a high-level inquiry and the evidence context your team needs to evaluate.

Request Demo
All Solutions