Crypto expert witness in Cyprus and Greece

Two things. First, analyse the blockchain evidence in a case and set out the findings in a written report the court can rely on: what moved, when, between which addresses, and what can and cannot be inferred from that. Second, explain it. A judge or arbitrator will usually have no technical background, so the value is in translating on-chain data into plain findings that survive scrutiny — and in appearing to give oral evidence and be cross-examined on them if the matter is heard.

Lawyers, almost always. Litigators running civil fraud and asset tracing claims, counsel preparing freezing or other interim applications, insolvency practitioners, criminal prosecutors and defence teams, regulatory enforcement lawyers, arbitration counsel, and family and probate practitioners dealing with assets a party has not disclosed. We are also instructed by in-house counsel and by insurers. Occasionally a party instructs us directly, but the report is usually stronger when it comes through the legal team who know what is in issue.

We will analyse the evidence and report what it shows. That is not the same thing, and it is worth being blunt about. An expert instructed by one side still owes an overriding duty to the court, above any duty to the party paying the fee. If the chain data does not support the position you would like it to support, we will say so in the report. That is the point of an independent expert. An expert who shades findings to suit the instructing party is worth nothing once cross-examination starts, and the damage lands on the client rather than the expert.

Our instructions and the questions we were asked. Our qualifications and the basis of our expertise. The material we were given and the material we obtained ourselves. The methodology, tools, and data sources used, in enough detail that another competent expert could repeat the exercise. The chain of custody over the evidence. The findings, with flow-of-funds diagrams and the underlying transaction schedules exhibited. The limitations and assumptions. And a declaration of independence and of our duty to the court.

Because it is the first thing opposing counsel attacks. Blockchain data is public, so the transactions themselves are rarely disputed. What gets disputed is the reasoning laid over them: address clustering, attribution of a wallet to a person or entity, the treatment of mixers and bridges, and the assumptions used where a hop cannot be resolved. A report that documents each inferential step, and separates observed fact from expert opinion, holds. A report that presents conclusions without showing the work does not.

Yes to both. We accept single joint expert appointments where the parties or the court prefer one expert rather than two, and we take joint instructions on agreed terms. Where each side has its own expert, we take part in expert discussions and in producing a joint statement identifying what is agreed, what is not, and why. In practice much of the technical disagreement in crypto cases narrows quickly at that stage, because the underlying data is common to both experts.

We agree a deadline before accepting instructions, and we do not accept instructions we cannot meet. Tell us the date the report is due and what else is fixed in the timetable — disclosure, expert meetings, the hearing window. Urgent applications are a different rhythm: for a freezing or interim application we can produce a focused analysis and supporting evidence on short notice, then a fuller report later. If the scope is not achievable in the time available, we will say so at the outset rather than deliver something thin.

Cyprus and Greece are where we are based and where we work directly with local legal teams and courts. Blockchain evidence itself is not jurisdictional, so we are also instructed by lawyers elsewhere in the EU and beyond, working alongside them on procedure and local requirements for expert evidence. We ask instructing lawyers to confirm the procedural rules that apply to expert evidence in their forum, and we write the report to comply with them.

A clear letter of instruction stating the questions you want answered and the issues in the proceedings, the relevant pleadings or case summary, and the underlying evidence: wallet addresses, transaction hashes, exchange records, disclosure material, and any prior expert reports. The timetable and the hearing date. And the identity of the parties, so we can run a conflict check before accepting. If some of the on-chain material is missing, we can often reconstruct it from the addresses.