Public blockchains record every transaction permanently and identically for every observer. That makes them an unusually strong evidentiary source: the ledger is the same whether it is read in Delaware, London, Toronto or Singapore. But “the funds are on the blockchain” and “we can prove who controls them” are different claims, and the distinction decides cases.
What tracing establishes as fact
The movement of value between addresses is a matter of record. Given a starting address and a date, the flow of funds through subsequent addresses — including deposits to exchanges, routing through bridges, and interactions with DeFi protocols — can be reconstructed transaction by transaction and verified independently by anyone against the public ledger. This is the part that does not depend on the analyst’s judgment.
What tracing establishes on the balance of probabilities
Attribution — linking an address to a person or entity — is an inference, not a record. Clustering heuristics, exchange deposit patterns, and behavioural analysis can make attribution highly probable, and courts routinely accept it, but it should be presented as a reasoned opinion with its confidence stated, not as certainty.
Where tracing stops
Privacy protocols, certain mixing techniques, and off-chain settlement can break a trace or reduce its confidence. A candid expert says so. The strength of an on-chain opinion comes partly from being explicit about its limits — which is also what makes it hold up under cross-examination.
Independent expert evidence should rest on first-hand verification against the public ledger, not on off-chain records alone.