See what the public record shows. Not what the offering says about itself.
L0gic Verify (Entity layer) cross-references what an offering, ICO, IPO, or company claims about itself against public-record ground truth — SEC EDGAR, state corporate filings, FINRA, USPTO, court records. Side-by-side. Discrepancy reporting only — no advice, no verdict, no claim of fraud-prevention. Just data.
Read-only public recordsDiscrepancy reporting onlyNot investment adviceNot a fraud detector
This is L0gic Verify's entity layer. The companion transaction layer verifies individual transactions (exchange-claim vs on-chain record). This layer verifies entities (offering-claim vs public-record record). Same verification discipline applied one layer up the stack — combine both for bespoke forensic engagements.
How it works
Multiple independent public-record sources cross-referenced. No account required for single-lookup.
Sample entity report
Real anonymized example using the operator's own loss case. Real reports exportable to PDF or JSON.
EDGAR filingNo Reg D Form D on file matching offering description⚠
State filingsCA + DE: incorporated 2016, no fintech precedent in officer histories⚠
Token contractsAuditor named in marketing material has no verifiable audit-firm registration⚠
Bank partnershipsNo corroborating public record — named partners did not announce reciprocally⚠
Press coveragePaid-PR-channel only — no independent business journalism⚠
FINRA / IAPDNo registered broker/dealer or adviser record for personnel marketing the offering⚠
Officers verifiedGarcia & Loughran identities match state filings✓
⚠ 6 Discrepancies Detected (data, not verdicts)
FieldPattern
SEC statusClaimed exemption with no matching EDGAR filing
Track recordOfficers lacking publicly-verifiable industry history claimed
Audit chainAudit-firm claim cannot be independently corroborated
PartnershipAsymmetric announcement — partners did not confirm publicly
MediaCoverage concentrated in paid-PR channels only
PersonnelNo FINRA/IAPD registration for those marketing investment exposure
Outcome of record (2021): SEC v. Uulala, Inc., Garcia & Loughran (5:21-cv-01307 C.D. Cal.). Unregistered offering, $9M+ from 1,000+ investors. Civil penalties $542,768. Tokens permanently disabled per settlement. This report retrospectively demonstrates that these discrepancies were detectable in 2018 from public-record cross-reference alone. L0gic Verify is not claiming prevention — only that the data was available.
Methodology note: The "What the public record shows" column reflects the operator's retrospective research using public-record cross-reference (SEC EDGAR filings, California & Delaware Secretary of State records, auditor-registration searches, reciprocal-announcement queries, press-coverage source-tracing, FINRA/IAPD lookups). The SEC enforcement action of record (5:21-cv-01307) establishes the unregistered-offering and material-misrepresentation findings; the individual claim-vs-record rows above are independently verifiable from the cited public-record sources. Subjects named are referenced on the basis of their public-record presence and the operator's direct experience as a counterparty in the underlying matter. Primary-source citations available on request.
Case study #2 — VeChain scam (operator's own, 5-year arc)
Second operator's loss, second public demonstration. December 19, 2020, 00:09 UTC (the evening of December 18 in the operator's local time). 751,670.96 VET (~$15,000 USD at time of loss). Documents both layers composing — entity-layer flags that were detectable before the loss, plus transaction-layer chain-of-custody that was reconstructed after. Together: a 5-year forensic arc that is still load-bearing.
7 warning signs — free WHOIS + DNS lookup, 2020-12-19
⚠ 7 of 7 flagged
⚠
Domain age · 49 days (created 2020-10-30, attack 2020-12-19)
A real company's website is years old. 49 days means someone made this last month and is already running a giveaway from it.
⚠
Registrar · REG.RU LLC (Russian Federation)
VeChain is a Singapore company. This is like a McDonald's coupon site registered in a country McDonald's doesn't operate from — wrong jurisdiction for the brand.
⚠
Registrant · a private individual (listed in Russia) · a free webmail address
An individual's name and a free email on a domain claiming to represent a public company. Ownership doesn't match the brand.
⚠
Hosting IP · 31.31.196.141 (REG.RU datacenter, Russia)
Same registrar's Russian datacenter as the domain itself. Real corporate sites use commercial cloud infrastructure (Cloudflare, AWS, etc.), not the registrar's own basement.
⚠
DNSSEC · unsigned
DNSSEC is the tamper-proof seal on a website's address records. Unsigned means anyone in the path can fake it. Real financial-affiliated sites sign.
⚠
TLD mismatch · vet4.net (official site is vechain.org)
Like app1e.com pretending to be Apple. The real brand owns the official address; impostors use lookalike names on different endings.
⚠
Cross-reference · vechain.org never linked vet4.net
If VeChain were running this giveaway, their official site would say so. It didn't. A 30-second visit to vechain.org would have shown nothing matched.
Transaction layer — chain-of-custody, 4 hops to Binance custody
Transaction Chain · 4 Hops to Binance CustodyDocumented on VeChainStats + explore.vechain.org
Handled ~4,556,019 VET total volume Oct 2020 – Feb 2021 — ~6× this loss alone. Strong signal of a multi-victim scam pattern; other VET-holders' stolen funds may have routed through the same wallet.
Unlabeled small-volume wallet per VeChainStats (10 in / 9 out TXs lifetime, no exchange tag) — appears as pre-deposit staging in this theft chain. The party who controlled this wallet at Hop 4 is the subpoena-actionable identity — Binance compliance has KYC on whoever initiated the deposit into their custody from here.
block 7,787,321 · 2020-12-19 01:49 UTC · 751,670.00 VET
[5]Binance Hot Wallet 1
0xa4aDAfAef9Ec07BC4Dc6De146934C7119341eE25
Per VeChainStats official label (258,761 in / 406,883 out lifetime TXs since 2018-07-23). Aggregate Binance custody. The Hop 4 TX hash anchors the precise inbound deposit event — Binance compliance has internal records that map this deposit to the receiving Binance customer account via their per-customer deposit-attribution system.
Total hops4Flight time1h 40mVolume in751,670.96 VETVolume out751,670.00 VET
From victim wallet to Binance custody in 1 hour 40 minutes, through three intermediate wallets. The final transaction hash precisely identifies the deposit address Binance can attribute to a specific customer account — which is what the open ticket #6424700 (May 2026 follow-up) asks the Binance compliance team to confirm.
Epistemic note: Identification of 0xa4aD…eE25 as Binance Hot Wallet 1 relies on VeChainStats's exchange-label system, which derives from public on-chain behavioral analysis and exchange attestation. The label is consistent with the wallet's transaction pattern (258,761 in / 406,883 out lifetime TXs since 2018) and is widely-used in VeChain forensic context, but is not directly Binance-cryptographically-attested; canonical confirmation remains pending via the open Binance compliance ticket #6424700 referenced above.
⚠ Combined forensic findings (data, not verdict)
Pre-loss7 entity-layer warning signs in WHOIS + DNS alone (free public lookup, 2020)
Post-loss4-hop transaction chain documented end-to-end with TX hashes + timestamps
Multi-victimAggregator wallet handled ~6× this loss in total volume — pattern, not single incident
Final destinationBinance Hot Wallet 1 (centralized exchange custody, KYC'd deposit address)
Status of record (2026):
VeChain Foundation responded 2025-10-29 acknowledging the case ("decentralized, no reversal capability; contact Binance and authorities"). Binance ticket #6424700 originally opened January 2021 remains open. Operator's May 2026 follow-up refined the question to a single narrowly-scoped compliance request: "Which Binance customer account received the deposit at TX `0xe670ee9b79…44ed11` on 2020-12-19 01:49 UTC?" — a question Binance's existing deposit-attribution systems can answer in minutes. Five-year load-bearing arc still active.
This is the second operator's-own-loss case study, published with explicit consent. It demonstrates that an entity-layer pre-check could have flagged vet4.net in seconds (49-day-old Russian-registered domain impersonating a major chain's CEO), while a transaction-layer post-trace documented the chain-of-custody all the way to Binance custody. L0gic Verify is not claiming prevention — only that, both before and after the loss, the data was available for verification at every step.
5-Year Forensic Arc · Dec 2020 → May 2026Email + on-chain + foundation records
2020-12-19 UTCLoss event
Theft — vet4.net "x2 VET giveaway" scam
751,670.96 VET (~$15,000) sent to scam burner address at 00:09 UTC (evening of Dec 18 local). Chain-of-custody documented in the transaction visualization above.
·~33 days
2021-01-20Institutional
First Binance contact — Ticket #6424700 opened
Email to Binance support with full on-chain trace. Response: boilerplate suggesting deposit-troubleshooting steps unrelated to the theft.
·~4 years 9 months · forensic chain reconstructed
2025-10-24Operator escalation
Re-submission with full forensic documentation
Re-submitted with the 4-hop chain, multi-victim aggregator signal, and subpoena-actionable identity at Hop 4. Initial delivery failed — support@binance.com was obsolete by 2025.
·~5 days
2025-10-29Foundation response
VeChain Foundation reply
support@vechain.org: "Decentralized blockchain, no reversal capability; contact Binance and authorities." Foundation acknowledged + redirected to centralized-exchange compliance.
·~6 months
2026-05-04Operator escalation
Refined narrowly-scoped compliance request
Follow-up to Binance compliance: "Which Binance customer received the deposit at TX 0xe670ee...44ed11?" — a question their deposit-attribution system can answer in minutes. Refined from 2021's broad ask to compliance-actionable precision.
·awaiting compliance response
2026 (now)Active
Ticket #6424700 — load-bearing arc still active
Five-year arc continuing. Evidence has grown more precise over time as on-chain labels matured + compliance-system understanding deepened. The case is not cold — it's precision-ready, awaiting institutional response.
5 years 5 months of continuous forensic discipline. Not "found a thing once" — carried the work across years while institutional responses caught up to the precision of the ask. This is what the bespoke tier produces: a forensic instrument that compounds in value the longer it's held.
Why this case study matters for the product structure:
The bespoke engagement tier exists precisely to combine entity-layer pre-checks and transaction-layer chain-of-custody reconstruction into one operator-signed forensic artifact. Most pro-se scam-loss victims have neither layer documented; institutional firms charge $10K–$50K+ for this depth. Get on the launch list → for the Forensic Report tier, or contact for bespoke if you need both layers traced.
Data sources & phased coverage
Free public APIs first (Phase 1). Premium aggregations and curated sources expand through Phases 2–4 as data licensing and engineering scale.
Phase 1 = free public APIs, available at launch.
Phase 2 = paid aggregations + state-filing curation, Forensic Report tier.
Phase 3 = FINRA + court records, premium tier.
Phase 4 = international expansion as demand surfaces.
Pattern-flag library
Common claim-vs-record discrepancy shapes. Each flagged as a data point, not a verdict. Possible legitimate causes always named alongside possible concerning causes — user decides what to do with the data.
Recent-incorporation gap
Entity incorporated < 12 months before public offering or token sale. Common in legitimate startups and in scam shells. Cross-reference with officer history, funding history, and prior-entity records.
Missing SEC registration
Offering claims SEC compliance but no matching EDGAR filing exists. Could indicate legitimate Reg D exempt offering that simply didn't file, or could indicate unregistered offering subject to enforcement risk.
Tax-haven registered agent
Registered agent in jurisdiction with no operational nexus. Common in legitimate IP holding companies and in entities structured to evade regulatory oversight.
Asymmetric partnership announcement
Offering announces partnership with major entity but no reciprocal announcement found in partner's records or news. Could be early-stage NDA constraints or could indicate fabricated relationships.
No FINRA / IAPD record
Personnel marketing investment exposure have no broker/dealer or investment-adviser registration. Could indicate exempt-status marketing or could indicate unregistered intermediary activity.
Paid-PR media only
All press coverage traces to paid-PR distribution channels. No independent journalism coverage. Common in pre-launch stealth marketing and also in offerings deliberately avoiding press scrutiny.
What entity verification does not do
Scope discipline is part of the product. This is not a fraud detector and not investment advice. Users will want us to say "this is a scam." We do not say that. We report data; you decide.
Not investment advice. Reports surface claim-vs-record discrepancies. They are not a recommendation to invest, not to invest, hold, or sell. Consult licensed counsel and registered investment advisers.
Not a fraud detector. Discrepancies have legitimate causes. We name possible-causes for each flag — legitimate and concerning — without verdict. Pattern alone is not proof.
Not due-diligence-of-record. A L0gic Verify report does not substitute for institutional due diligence, audited financials, registered-adviser review, or licensed legal counsel.
Not predictive. Public-record verification is retrospective in nature. We surface what is documented; we do not predict outcomes.
Pricing
Same pricing shape as the transaction layer. Bespoke engagements combine both layers for case-study-class forensic depth.
L0gic Verify (Entity layer) launches Phase 1 first — SEC EDGAR + USPTO + SEC Litigation + IAPD. Free single-lookup at launch. Phases 2–4 unlock as the Forensic Report and Bespoke tiers gain traction.