Source and investigation methodology

Exact identity comes first

Our platform reviews retain the recorded name, exact website or profile where available, source authority, jurisdiction and relevant source dates. A similarly named firm is not necessarily the same entity. Clone or impersonation qualifiers must remain attached to the identity described in the source.

What the source supports

A regulatory warning can identify an authorization concern, an impersonation risk or another stated finding. We distinguish that finding from allegations the source does not establish. A source record does not by itself prove a particular client loss, identify the controller of every wallet or establish that funds will be recovered.

Investigation and recovery

CryptoDac operates in the United States as a digital asset recovery and investigation company. We examine the relevant transaction trail and supporting records, build an evidence chronology and assess appropriate lawful recovery routes. Analytical observations, inferences and unresolved questions should remain distinguishable. Exchange reports, independent counsel and authorities each have their own requirements and decision processes.

Publication and source dates

Each article has a CryptoDac publication date. Source registration, validation and modification dates are labelled separately and may refer to different events. They are not invented historical CryptoDac publication dates. Sources can change; the attributed authority remains the reference for its current finding.

Review and corrections

Tell us about an identity mismatch, inaccurate statement or updated primary source through our corrections route. An absent directory entry does not establish that a platform is safe. For an individual matter, request a case assessment and describe what you know without sharing wallet secrets.