By Robert Whitaker
Most victims hear the same thing after a crypto scam: nothing can be done. That response is wrong and it costs people their money and their trust. Cryptocurrency crime is absolutely investigable. The barrier is not the blockchain. The barrier is how we train.
The bottom line: Law enforcement needs a standardized, systematic, court-tested approach that turns public ledger data into evidence that holds up. Courses that focus on buttons and screenshots without foundations, method and courtroom readiness leave investigators exposed and assets unrecovered.
What follows is a practical blueprint: how to reset the investigative mindset, what “depth over convenience” training looks like, the AITS-P framework from intake to seizure and preservation, how to use blockchain transparency for speed and proof and the agency standards that make results reproducible.
| RELATED: How police can stop crypto scams with coordination
Why law enforcement must reset the crypto mindset
The most dangerous misconception in this space is the belief that crimes involving cryptocurrency cannot be investigated. Crypto cases are not “cyber” puzzles for specialists, they are financial crimes involving a new form of value and they belong inside existing frameworks for fraud, money laundering and conspiracy. Once we adopt that mindset, the confusion lifts. We stop treating the chain like a black box and start treating it like a ledger that records movement of value.
Foundations matter because they protect cases. Investigators need a chain-agnostic understanding of how value moves, why a transaction exists and what artifacts each hop leaves behind. That includes UTXO and account models, custody flows, and how bridges, mixers, OTC desks and exchanges operate. New tokens and interfaces appear every month, but the principles that govern value movement do not change. Teach those first and you give officers the confidence to act quickly and defend their work.
Cryptocurrency crime is absolutely investigable. The barrier is not the blockchain. The barrier is how we train.
Crypto investigation training: Depth over convenience
Surface-level courses that jump straight to visualized tracing teach familiarity, not proficiency. Technical mastery is non-negotiable because modern laundering techniques exploit details. Investigators need more than definitions. They need working knowledge of address and key generation, clustering limits, smart contracts, consensus and privacy features. Without that depth, even an impressive graph becomes fragile under cross-examination.
Training should also respect how adults learn. Repetition of core ideas across different scenarios helps officers retain and apply skills under pressure. Concepts that appear in the classroom must reappear in labs, then reappear again in report writing so that muscle memory carries into live cases. Most importantly, training must explain the why behind each action. When an investigator can articulate method and limitations in plain language to a judge or jury, credibility follows.
Tools help, but they are multipliers, not substitutes. They make analysts faster and broaden access, yet they cannot replace a transparent, reproducible method. If a key finding exists only inside a black box, it is not ready for a report.
AITS-P: A structured framework for crypto cases
I teach a simple sequence that captures the discipline required to move from chaos to court. Each phase is distinct and skipping one only creates rework later:
Analyze. Begin with a thorough assessment that captures the victim’s story and the digital context that shaped it. Gather communication methods, exchange usage, social media identities and encrypted messaging handles. Note dates, times, platforms and any known wallet references. The goal is not to jump into a tool. The goal is to define what must be proven and to map the likely data sources you will need to prove it.
Investigate. Think multi-jurisdictionally from the start because chains do not respect borders. Establish relationships with prosecutors and international partners before the crisis arrives. Build the paperwork muscle for subpoenas, preservation requests and mutual legal assistance pathways so that legal process can move as quickly as the funds do.
Trace. Tracing has four jobs: document the flow of stolen assets in a way another investigator can reproduce and keep a running financial accounting of amounts, fees and balances at each step; identify patterns that repeat across movements; attribute who controls funds at key points; and surface co-conspirators in the laundering network. Link analysis should not be a collage of arrows; it should be a narrative that connects actors, timing, amounts and intent to elements a prosecutor can charge.
Seize-Preserve. Move early on preservation and chain of custody. Have playbooks ready for different platforms and different blockchains, including what to capture, how to package exhibits and how to document tool versions and parameters. Rapid freezes, combined with clean documentation, turn a good analysis into a recoverable outcome.
Think multi-jurisdictionally from the start because chains do not respect borders.
Leverage blockchain transparency for speed and evidence
Blockchain’s permanence is an investigative advantage. Every movement of funds is recorded and the ledger does not forget. Because base-layer transaction histories are public, investigators can reconstruct fund flows without subpoenas for the on-chain record itself, reserving legal process for off-chain identity and account data. That transparency becomes a real advantage when training centers on reproducibility. Record the what, when and how for each dataset you touch, including the tools and settings used. Store screenshots with context. Maintain a log of where attribution labels came from and how confident you are in each one, with a sentence that explains why. Reproducibility is the bridge from an interesting graphic to admissible evidence.
This transparency also shapes how we train for speed. The first 48 hours can determine whether assets are frozen or lost. Scenario labs should mirror how cases start in the field. A victim walks into a lobby. A patrol stop turns up a seed phrase. A fraud analyst sees a suspicious off-ramp. Start with incomplete information, require careful assumptions and move to immediate actions that preserve options. End each lab with a short report, exhibits and next steps aligned with legal process. When officers practice that rhythm, they move faster when it counts and make fewer mistakes that later create courtroom problems.
Courtroom-ready crypto evidence
Courtroom readiness begins on day one of training. Investigators should learn how to qualify as a witness, how to explain clustering and attribution without overpromising and how to acknowledge limitations without undermining sound conclusions. Exhibits must be accurate and understandable. Analytic steps must map to charging theories and venues so each choice serves a legal purpose. If a conclusion depends on an opaque output that cannot be recreated, expect it to be attacked. The answer is not to abandon software. The answer is to show your work.
A disciplined reporting structure keeps cases on track. Separate facts, inferences and hypotheses. Facts are the observations anyone can verify from the ledger and preserved records. Inferences are reasoned conclusions from those facts. Hypotheses are leads you intend to test next. Reports written this way help supervisors decide faster, help prosecutors see what is chargeable and meet defense challenges with clear evidence rather than argument.
Collaborate with VASPs and adapt to evolving criminal tactics
Partnerships are part of the method. Virtual Asset Service Providers with proper AML and KYC programs should respond to freeze letters, subpoenas for information and seizure warrants. Relationships with exchanges, custodians and other VASPs turn tracing into identification and help close gaps between on-chain evidence and real-world actors. Partnerships with analytics providers and specialized service firms extend capacity on complex cases. Treat these partners as force multipliers that fit inside your method, not as replacements for it.
Criminal tactics keep changing. We now see cross-chain and multi-chain laundering as routine while privacy-enhancing technologies and sophisticated mixers grow more capable. DeFi exploits add new patterns to the landscape and fraud teams are beginning to use AI-assisted tools to scale social engineering and move money faster than before.
Training has to evolve with that reality. The goal is not to chase every new token or interface, but to build continuous learning on top of principles that transfer across chains and obfuscation methods. When investigators master those fundamentals and refresh them regularly with realistic scenarios, they can adapt to new tactics without restarting from zero.
Partnerships with analytics providers and specialized service firms extend capacity on complex cases.
Agency-level standards for crypto investigations
Agencies control quality by the questions they ask and the habits they enforce. Scrutinize curriculum rather than logos. Require providers to explain how they handle attribution, error and documentation and to show exactly where inference stops and confirmation begins. Ask for example reports with exports and exhibits, then test whether a second analyst can reproduce the findings from those materials alone.
Pilot a cohort that pairs investigators with prosecutors. Carry a case from intake through report writing to mock testimony and use the lessons to refine both training and internal process. Standardize report templates and add a reproducibility-focused review for significant filings. Treat these steps not as bureaucracy but as safeguards that preserve time, protect victims and strengthen outcomes.
The standard our cases deserve
My philosophy is straightforward, shaped by years of watching good cases falter for avoidable reasons. I believe we must replace a mindset of defeat with a mindset of discipline and we do that by teaching depth over convenience and by insisting on a structured framework that carries a case from analysis through seizure and preservation. When investigators learn to leverage the transparency of the blockchain, to work with urgency in the first hours of a case, to prepare for courtroom scrutiny from the start and to collaborate where it truly adds value, they build investigations that move with purpose and hold together under pressure.
If agencies commit to this standard, they will move faster in the opening 48 hours, recover more assets for victims and defend their work when it matters most. If they do not, the weaknesses will surface at the worst possible moment: when a prosecutor is preparing charges, when a judge is weighing admissibility or when a defense expert is dissecting an unexamined assumption.
My ask is simple. Build on foundations you can explain, follow a method you can repeat and write reports you can defend months later when memories have faded and interfaces have changed. Train investigators to be technically fluent, procedurally disciplined and ready for court because that is how we protect victims, strengthen outcomes and keep pace with the criminals who hope we will do neither.
About the author
Robert Whitaker is Director of Law Enforcement Affairs at Merkle Science and a former Supervisory Special Agent with Homeland Security Investigations. He specializes in blockchain investigations, financial crime strategy, and cross-border intelligence collaboration.
