The Court Ready Crypto Trace Report, Section by Section

A court ready crypto tracing report ties every finding to the public ledger record it rests on, states how confident each link is and why, names the exchanges and issuers where funds came to rest with enough particularity to support a subpoena or a freeze order, and says plainly what the evidence does not show. It is written so opposing counsel's expert can check every step and so the examiner can defend it under the reliability standard of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Florida's section 90.702. Software screenshots and a graph are not a report.

The sections every report we deliver carries

1. The question presented. What counsel asked us to determine, in one paragraph, and the date range and assets in scope.
2. The starting evidence. Every transaction ID, wallet address, account statement and receipt the trace began from, where each came from, and how it was preserved. Clients can gather it in advance with our crypto scam evidence checklist.
3. Preservation and chain of custody. How client records and ledger data were collected, hashed where applicable, stored and handled, so the exhibits can be authenticated.
4. The flow of funds. Each movement from the starting point to the end points, with the transaction ID, date, time, asset and amount for every hop, and an exhibit chart that matches the table line for line.
5. Confidence for each link. Every connection is labeled by strength and by its basis, so the court sees which links are direct on chain facts and which rest on inference.
6. The off ramps and holders. The exchanges, stablecoin issuers and other businesses where funds were converted or came to rest, identified with the addresses, accounts and amounts involved, which is the particularity a subpoena or freeze order needs.
7. The people. Where the evidence supports it, the individuals and entities connected to the wallets, with the basis for each connection and its limits. Where it does not, the report says so.
8. What the evidence does not show. Gaps, dead ends, funds that reached places no United States court can reach, and alternative explanations considered and why they were or were not excluded.
9. Reproducibility. A statement that each on chain finding can be verified against the public ledger by another qualified examiner, and the information needed to do it.
10. Examiner qualifications. The examiner's credentials, licensing and testimony history.

Particularity matters more after January 2027

Under the GENIUS Act (Public Law 119-27), regulated payment stablecoin issuers may issue coins only if they have the technical capability to comply, and will comply, with any lawful order. The Act defines a lawful order as a final order, warrant, process or other requirement from a court or authorized federal agency that requires the issuer to seize, freeze, burn or prevent the transfer of its coins, names the coins or accounts with reasonable particularity, and is subject to judicial or administrative review. The Act takes effect no later than January 18, 2027. A trace that identifies the exact addresses holding the stablecoins, with amounts and dates, is the factual foundation counsel needs for that kind of order. A proper order is enforceable against the issuer under the Act, which creates no private refund right. Today, the major issuers generally act only on law enforcement requests and court orders.

The report never claims more than the chain shows

• The report never overstates certainty about who controls a wallet. A licensed Florida investigator may not willfully make a false statement or report to a client, and a report that claims more than the chain shows will not survive cross examination anyway.
• The report always shows its basis, so another examiner can test every finding.
• The report gives no legal advice. Which claims to bring, which court to file in, and whether to seek a freeze are counsel's decisions. We are not a law firm.

We trace and testify, and counsel decides strategy

The report is built for the two paths that produce results in these cases. When the evidence supports it, Section 7 identifies the people, and if they sit where a judgment can be enforced, counsel has a defendant. When funds came to rest at a business that answers to a court, Section 6 gives the particularity a subpoena or freeze order needs. There are no magic buttons. Tracing never guarantees that money comes back, and the report says plainly when a path is closed. Our page on pig butchering scam investigation shows how those two paths run in a crypto investment fraud case.

We take engagements directly from law firms and in house legal teams, under counsel's direction where privilege matters. We trace and testify; counsel decides strategy and pursues subpoenas, freezes and suits. We pay no referral fees to law firms and accept none. We never ask anyone for seed phrases, private keys, wallet access or remote control of a computer, we take payment by card or bank transfer only, never crypto or gift cards, and we never contact victims first. Matt Aubin is a court qualified expert witness, including in federal court. Matters run from scam litigation to divorce, judgment enforcement and internal theft. For the full scope of the service, see our cryptocurrency tracing investigator page, and for collection matters, our judgment enforcement asset search. If the client is an individual victim, have them file at ic3.gov, with the FTC, and with their exchange before engagement; the reports help the case and cost nothing. Clients who were approached by a so called recovery firm before they reached counsel should read our guide to fake crypto recovery services.

Questions counsel asks before retaining a crypto tracing expert

What should a crypto tracing expert report include?

The question presented, the starting evidence and how it was preserved, a hop by hop flow of funds with transaction IDs, dates and amounts, a confidence label and basis for each link, the exchanges and issuers where funds came to rest, any identification findings and their limits, a section on what the evidence does not show, a reproducibility statement, and the examiner's qualifications.

Is blockchain tracing evidence admissible in court?

Admissibility turns on the reliability of the method and the qualifications of the witness under rules such as Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Florida's section 90.702. Admission is always the court's decision. A report that documents its basis and can be reproduced by another examiner gives counsel the strongest footing.

Can a crypto tracing report support a freeze order or subpoena?

It can supply the facts. A report that identifies the specific exchange accounts or stablecoin addresses holding traced funds, with amounts and dates, gives counsel the particularity needed to seek a subpoena or a freeze order. Counsel seeks the order, and the court decides whether to grant it.

How does the GENIUS Act affect stablecoin freezes?

The GENIUS Act requires regulated payment stablecoin issuers to be able to comply, and to comply, with lawful orders from a court or authorized federal agency to seize, freeze, burn or prevent the transfer of their coins, where the order names the coins or accounts with reasonable particularity. It takes effect no later than January 18, 2027. It does not create a private refund right.

Do you testify?

Yes. Matt Aubin is a court qualified expert witness, including in federal court, and testifies to the tracing and its limits in plain terms.

Do you pay or accept referral fees from law firms?

No, in either direction. Florida's investigator licensing law prohibits a licensee from soliciting business for an attorney in return for compensation, and we keep that line clean.

E3 Legacy Intel, a division of Southern Recon Agency, LLC. Florida private investigative agency license A-1400197. 805 E Bloomingdale Ave #680, Brandon, FL 33511. (877) 732-6648. Not a law firm; no legal advice.

Sources

• GENIUS Act, Public Law 119-27, Sec. 2(16) and Sec. 4(a)(6)(B): https://www.congress.gov/119/plaws/publ27/PLAW-119publ27.htm
• Federal Rule of Evidence 702: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702
• Florida Statutes s. 90.702: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.702.html
• Florida Statutes s. 493.6119(4) (no false statement or report to a client): http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0400-0499/0493/Sections/0493.6119.html
• Florida Statutes s. 493.6118(1)(l) (soliciting business for an attorney): http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0400-0499/0493/Sections/0493.6118.html