Captura Cyber Logo (Blue)
Schedule a Consultation

Table of Contents

Picture of Garren Hamilton

Garren Hamilton

Garren Hamilton is an expert witness in cryptocurrency forensics and cybercrime investigation. As the lead Cryptocurrency Expert Witness at Captura Cyber, he provides expert reports and testimony for legal professionals. He specialises in Bitcoin and Ethereum tracing, DeFi forensics, and cryptocurrency fraud investigations, drawing on a 25 year law enforcement and private sector career.

Schedule a Consultation

Related Posts

Map of London showing location of courthouse

D’Aloia v Persons Unknown Judgment Analysis: Implications for Tracing and VASP Liability

In the landmark D’Aloia v Persons Unknown judgment, the UK High Court established that stablecoins like USDT can attract property rights, yet the claim against the exchange still failed. The court dismissed the case because the expert’s opaque tracing methodology could not be audited or clearly explained. This ruling serves as a guide for litigators regarding the standards of evidence: establishing liability generally requires forensic evidence that is transparent, replicable, and defensible.

Read More »
Map of London with Tracing Scrutiny

Cryptocurrency Tracing Methodology Scrutinised: D’Aloia v Persons Unknown

In D’Aloia v Persons Unknown, the UK High Court dismissed a claim against a cryptocurrency exchange because the claimant’s expert evidence was deemed unreliable [J.264]. The court rejected the expert’s “black box” approach, ruling that a failure to articulate a clear, coherent cryptocurrency tracing methodology was fatal to the claim. The judgment set a precedent for litigators to be mindful that their expert’s methodology is transparent, mathematically consistent, and capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny.

Read More »
Map of the world highlighting British Columbia, Canada, which set a legal precedent in Xu v. NDAX on how crypto exchanges discharge their duty of care.

How Crypto Exchanges Discharge Duty of Care: Xu v. NDAX Canada

In Xu v. NDAX Canada, the BC Supreme Court dismissed a plaintiff’s claim, finding the exchange had satisfied its duty of care by providing multiple, explicit warnings that the customer was “likely ‘being scammed'”. The ruling demonstrated that while a duty of care may have existed, it could be fully discharged through robust, documented interventions. This case established that proactive warnings—including phone calls and risk disclosures—were powerful evidence in building a defensibility argument.

Read More »
Schedule a Consultation