Lawful Collection: Pretexting Poisons the Evidence
caution
Core idea
How you obtain records can poison them. An investigator who pretexts, impersonates the account holder, or lies to a service to extract records, may be committing a crime (for example, the US GLBA pretexting provisions bar obtaining customer financial information under false pretenses) and taints the evidence’s admissibility regardless of how probative it is. The identity you unmask is only worth what the process behind it can survive in court.
Components
- Pretexting or social-engineering a service for records = potential criminal exposure for the investigator plus inadmissible fruit.
- Use clean legal process instead: subpoena, court order, MLAT, or civil disclosure (see Compelling VASP Disclosure: The Legal-Process Ladder).
- Keep a tight chain of custody and separate on-chain fact from inference so the lawful provenance of every artefact is provable.
When to use
Whenever tempted to shortcut legal process to get data faster from an exchange, swap service, or other custodian.
Example
A destination KYC identity obtained by an investigator impersonating the customer to support staff is worthless, excluded at trial, and it exposes the investigator to liability. The same identity obtained via a civil disclosure order stands.
Related
Compelling VASP Disclosure: The Legal-Process Ladder, Public Attribution and Legal Risk, Investigator OPSEC, Custody Log: The Six Questions, Separate On-Chain Fact from Inference