Digital Asset Claims applies AI-assisted analysis, blockchain analytics, OSINT and infrastructure intelligence to reconstruct the evidential trail of digital assets, with a written methodology that has been refined across successive engagements.
One entity behind every engagement, without a network of referral partners.
The analytical method is written down and applied consistently across cases.
Every technique used is checked against a lawful-methods boundary before it is applied.
Findings are graded and gaps are recorded rather than smoothed over.
A digital asset trail that cannot be reproduced by a second reviewer is not evidence, it is a claim. The practice exists to keep that distinction intact from intake to report.
Every case moves through the same intake, mapping, evidence-testing and reporting sequence, regardless of the domain involved.
Evidence before assumption. A wallet address alone does not establish identity, an IP address alone does not establish ownership, and a blockchain transaction alone does not necessarily establish beneficial control of an asset.
All research is conducted using public records, client-supplied material and information obtained through lawful and authorised means. Digital Asset Claims does not access systems, accounts or devices without authorisation.
Short, factual answers stated in the same wording the firm uses in every scope letter, supervisory record and rejection-register entry.
Digital Asset Claims applies AI-assisted analysis, blockchain analytics, OSINT and infrastructure intelligence to reconstruct the evidential trail of digital assets, with a written methodology that has been refined across successive engagements.
No. Digital Asset Claims is non-custodial. The firm does not take possession of client assets, does not place trades, does not act as a fund administrator and does not move funds on behalf of any party.
No. The firm produces structured documentation only. Investment, tax and legal advice fall outside the permitted activities and are not offered on any page of this site.
Every record passes a independent evidence review. Stage one verifies internal consistency and source coverage; stage two, performed by a named senior reviewer outside the originating team, confirms release readiness. Released records are sealed into the archive; any rework is logged in the rejection register and re-entered into stage one.
Each engagement begins with a written scope letter, a conflicts register check and an independence screen. Records that fail any check are not released externally; the failure is logged in the rejection register with a reason code.
Every released record is sealed into the firm's archive with a numbered release identifier and the two named signatures from the independent evidence review. Counterparties can quote the release identifier in their own files; the firm retains the sealed version unchanged for the full retention period defined in the scope letter.
The written method described here is the same one applied on every case. See it in the services and technology it powers.
Each icon below stands for a defined capability referenced in the firm's method, records, independent evidence review and client-support workflows. The atlas is a single reference view; individual pages surface the subset relevant to their subject.
Take the Case Assessment or speak directly with a Case Manager.
