7 min read
No two recovery matters are the same, but certain patterns recur often enough to shape how Canadian clients should approach them. This essay sets out the most common scenarios we see, the signals that distinguish them, and the general shape of a sensible response. Nothing here is a substitute for a scoped assessment of a specific matter — but knowing the shape of the terrain helps.
Impersonation and investment-platform fraud
By volume, this is the most common scenario. A client is led — often over weeks of warm, professional-sounding communication — to deposit funds into a platform that appears legitimate and is not. Dashboards show positions. Returns appear. At some point, withdrawals fail, fees are demanded, and contact is eventually lost. Funds have typically moved from the initial deposit wallet through several intermediate addresses before reaching venues or cash-out points.
These matters respond well to early, disciplined tracing. The quality of the record at the exit points is what shapes the practical options — and acting in days rather than weeks materially helps.
Unauthorized access to self-custody wallets
A client loses funds from a personal wallet they believed was secure. Causes vary: a malicious browser extension, a phishing signature, an exposed seed phrase, a compromised device. The tracing challenge is similar to fraud matters, though the evidentiary context is different. Forensic review of the device and the surrounding environment is often as important as the on-chain work.
Exchange-related disputes
A deposit that never credited. A withdrawal that left the exchange but never arrived. A frozen account pending compliance review. These matters sit at the boundary between recovery work and ordinary consumer-protection engagement. The on-chain evidence is usually straightforward; the difficulty is in how the exchange’s internal processes engage with an external inquiry. Well-prepared documentation accelerates resolution.
Counterparty disputes
OTC trades, treasury arrangements, commercial contracts with a crypto component. When a party to an agreement says "I sent it" and the other says "I never received it," on-chain evidence can often settle the factual question quickly. These matters benefit from disciplined tracing precisely because the dispute is narrow and the evidence is clean.
Internal compliance and audit reviews
Not every engagement is adversarial. Corporate clients increasingly request structured reviews of their own on-chain activity, either for internal audit, regulatory response, or due diligence on counterparties. These matters look similar to tracing work but carry different deliverables — typically a memorandum oriented to internal readers rather than external counterparties.
The common thread
Across all of these, the same structural truth holds: disciplined evidence, calibrated language, and an early conversation with qualified counsel materially widen the range of options available to the client. The specific shape of the work differs; the posture that produces good outcomes does not.