In financial remedy proceedings, one party disclosed a cryptocurrency portfolio that appeared relatively simple on paper. In reality, the holdings were spread across more than a dozen wallets on multiple blockchains and involved hundreds of transactions across memecoins, NFT collections, inscriptions, runes, rare sats and decentralised exchanges. WRS was instructed as a consulting expert to trace, inventory, value and assess the portfolio.
Key Takeaways
1. Disclosure is only a snapshot
Crypto balances can change between disclosure and review, particularly where wallets remain active. A current-date check is essential to establish the actual position.
2. Low value does not mean low complexity
Even modest balances can sit behind hundreds of transactions involving decentralised exchanges, liquidity platforms, NFT marketplaces and minting activity.
3. New asset types require different methods
NFTs, inscriptions, runes, rare sats and BRC-20 tokens each require different tools and pricing sources to trace and value reliably.
4. The limits of the evidence must be clear
Modern wallets can spread one person’s activity across many addresses. A good report should distinguish what can be established from the blockchain from what cannot be concluded without fuller wallet access or additional records.
At a glance
Matter type
Financial remedy proceedings
Our role
Consulting expert to a party’s legal team
Assets
Tokens, memecoins, NFT collections, inscriptions, runes, rare sats and BRC-20 tokens
Wallets reviewed
More than a dozen, across multiple blockchains, in active and dormant use
Outcome
Full inventory, fixed-date valuations and a wallet-by-wallet obfuscation assessment
The challenge
The disclosed addresses appeared modest in isolation, but together they covered several blockchains and a wide range of asset types. Some wallets were labelled dormant yet showed recent activity, others held hundreds of NFTs, and several were still being used for speculative trading at the time of our review. Balances stated during disclosure had already changed by the time they were checked. The party’s activity also spanned centralised and decentralised exchanges, liquidity provision, minting and burning platforms, NFT marketplaces and newer Bitcoin-native assets, making the tracing exercise significantly more complex than the headline value suggested.
Our strategy
We built an inventory from the disclosure schedule and tested ownership wallet by wallet, checking whether each address described as “in use”, “dormant” or “cold storage” matched the on-chain record. We reconstructed transaction histories from a fixed start date, valued every material holding using independent pricing sources appropriate to each asset type, and then assessed each wallet for potential obfuscation indicators including mixer usage, privacy tools, cross-chain bridges, rapid wallet-hopping and fragmented transfer patterns.
Need expert support behind the scenes?
Our digital assets team can support legal teams with complex crypto tracing, valuation and wallet analysis in financial remedy proceedings and other disputes.
Building the inventory
We matched every disclosed address against on-chain data and classified each by status. The inventory covered tokens across several blockchains, NFT collections held in multiple wallets and marketplaces, inscriptions and runes on Bitcoin, and residual exchange balances. Where a wallet type limited visibility of its full history, we recorded that limitation clearly.
Following the activity
The transaction volumes were high relative to the balances. One wallet alone recorded more than 200 transfers within a matter of months, largely through decentralised exchanges and liquidity platforms. Other wallets showed repeated interactions with minting and burning contracts. The overall pattern was active, speculative trading involving memecoins, liquidity provision, token swaps and NFTs, including transfers between the party’s own wallets.
Exchange withdrawals from multiple centralised platforms were traced to the disclosed wallets and reconciled where possible. Wallets described as dormant were also checked for recent activity and, in some cases, were found to have been used after the date of disclosure.
Valuation
The valuation exercise covered not only standard cryptoassets but also NFT collections, inscriptions and runes. These required different marketplace data, specialist explorers and pricing tools. Where an asset was too illiquid or too new to support a reliable market price, that limitation was stated rather than forcing a valuation.
Obfuscation and risk
We found no direct evidence of mixer or privacy-tool usage. Cross-chain bridging was identified in one wallet’s history, but the funds were traced to other addresses controlled by the same party. Some wallets showed fragmented, high-frequency micro-transactions and repeated movement through low-value or experimental tokens. These patterns were treated as elevated obfuscation risk rather than proof of concealment, and specific transactions requiring explanation were flagged.
The outcome
The legal team received a complete inventory covering every disclosed wallet and asset type, fixed-date valuations, and a wallet-by-wallet assessment of obfuscation risk, together with the specific points requiring explanation or further records.
