In contested financial remedy proceedings, one spouse alleged that a cryptocurrency portfolio had been hidden or moved, while the other maintained that the assets had remained untouched. WRS was appointed as Single Joint Expert to value the portfolio, trace the assets across several blockchains and assess whether the evidence supported either account. The analysis ultimately found the holdings to be intact, traceable and recoverable, with no evidence of dissipation.
Key Takeaways
1. Tracing can clear a party as well as expose one
Independent blockchain analysis can show that assets were preserved and not dissipated. That can narrow the issues for the court just as effectively as evidence of concealment would.
2. Screenshots alone are not enough to establish value
Wallet and exchange screenshots may show quantities, but without reliable timestamps and pricing sources they cannot support a robust valuation. Independent pricing at fixed dates can.
3. Consistent methodology matters
Using the same pricing source and valuation method at each date helps ensure that changes in value reflect market movement rather than differences in analysis.
4. Clear limitations are part of reliable expert evidence
Where records are incomplete, the report should say so plainly and avoid drawing conclusions beyond what the evidence supports.
At a glance
Matter type
Financial remedy proceedings
Our role
Single Joint Expert (FPR Part 25)
Assets reviewed
Multi-asset portfolio across several blockchains and exchanges
Review period
24 months
Outcome
Holdings traced, intact and recoverable; no evidence of dissipation
The challenge
Each party had a different account of what had happened to the cryptocurrency portfolio. One alleged concealment and dissipation, while the other said the assets had been moved into a hardware wallet and left untouched. The evidence was incomplete, consisting of undated screenshots and partial exchange records, so the central issue was whether the available evidence could establish what had actually happened to the assets.
Our strategy
We reconciled the available exchange records against the on-chain record of every identified wallet and valued each material holding at two dates using independent pricing. Where records were missing, we recorded the limitation rather than filling the gap, and tested every claim of movement or inactivity against the blockchain.
Need independent expert evidence on crypto assets?
How the review worked
We started with the available exchange records, which showed fiat being deposited, cryptoassets being purchased and traded, and assets later being withdrawn to self-custody wallets. We then matched those withdrawals against the corresponding on-chain deposits to build a verified picture of how the portfolio had moved.
What the blockchain showed
After those transfers, none of the identified wallets sent anything further. There were no swaps, bridges, contract interactions or transfers to third-party or high-risk addresses. The only additional activity consisted of unsolicited low-value “dust” transactions, which were excluded as irrelevant to ownership or access.
Gaps in the records
One exchange account was disclosed part-way through the instruction and added material holdings to the valuation. Because a full transaction history for that exchange was not available, we could not reconstruct when or how those assets were acquired. The report recorded this clearly as a limitation rather than treating it as a finding.
Valuation and tax
We valued each material asset at two dates using the same independent pricing source and methodology, so any difference between the figures reflected market movement rather than a change in analytical approach. We also identified which historic transactions were taxable disposals, while leaving the calculation of any tax liability to a tax adviser.
The outcome
The portfolio was found to be intact, traceable and recoverable, with no evidence of dissipation or concealment. The report gave the court a verified account of the assets and clearly set out both what the evidence established and the limits of what could be concluded.
