No cryptocurrency background needed. If you think you might have been scammed and want to understand what L0gic Verify does, start with the glossary card and work down.
0xeAd5c1...061C) that anyone can see, plus a private key only you know.
Maybe — depends on what you have. L0gic Verify produces forensic documentation of cryptocurrency transactions. It does not recover funds, contact exchanges on your behalf, or guarantee any outcome. What it does produce is an operator-signed report tracing the chain of custody of the money, which can be useful for:
• Tax loss documentation (proving the loss to the IRS for a deduction)
• SEC Fair Fund claims if the perpetrator has been charged
• Class-action standing if other victims exist
• Counsel briefings if you're working with an attorney
If you don't yet know whether your case fits, email patrick@l0gic.ai with a one-sentence description of what happened. No charge for that conversation.
No. If you have records from an exchange (a screenshot, a CSV export, or a transaction ID), that's enough to start. The operator translates the technical chain-of-custody into plain-English findings that you can hand to a CPA, an attorney, or the IRS without needing to explain the underlying blockchain technology yourself.
The case studies on this site demonstrate the level of explanation we work to — even when the underlying forensic work is technical, the report is meant to be readable.
Two pricing tiers:
• Forensic Report — from $95 for a single transaction. You provide the transaction ID; we produce an operator-signed PDF report cross-referencing what the exchange recorded against what the blockchain shows. Suitable for: tax dispute, audit support, simple counsel briefing.
• Bespoke Engagement — for multi-transaction cases like the case studies on this page (UULALA, VeChain). Pricing is scoped per case after a free initial review — depends on transaction volume, time range, and how many public-record sources need cross-referencing. Realistically: low hundreds to mid-thousands of dollars depending on case depth. Cheaper than institutional forensic accounting firms (which typically start at $5,000+ for similar work).
For the single-transaction report (from $95): typically 1–3 business days from when payment is received.
For Bespoke Engagements: depends on case depth. Most cases land within 1–2 weeks of agreed scope; complex multi-year chains (like the VeChain case study) can take longer. We'll give you a firm timeline as part of the scope quote.
For a single-transaction report, the minimum is:
• The transaction ID (also called a TX hash — usually a long string starting with 0x...)
• The exchange the transaction was reported through (Coinbase, Kraken, etc.)
• Optional: any screenshots or CSV exports you already have
For a bespoke engagement, additional context helps — what happened, approximately when, how you discovered the loss, and any communication you've had with exchanges or law enforcement. Don't worry about formatting; share what you have and we'll work from there.
No. Honestly, no honest forensic service can. L0gic Verify produces documentation; it does not recover stolen funds. Recovery (when it happens at all) requires either: (a) the perpetrator being identified and prosecuted, (b) the funds being seized by law enforcement and distributed via a Fair Fund or similar mechanism, or (c) civil litigation finding success. All of those take years and often produce only partial recovery.
What L0gic Verify does reliably produce is the documented chain of custody you'd need to participate in any of those processes if they happen.
The case studies on this site (UULALA, VeChain) are both still open after 5+ years — documentation makes the case prosecution-ready even when prosecution hasn't arrived yet.
Transaction IDs and wallet addresses you submit are queried against public blockchain APIs — that information is already public on the blockchain (anyone can look up any transaction). For the case studies on this site (UULALA, VeChain), those are the operator's own losses, published with the operator's explicit consent.
Customer data submitted for forensic reports is treated as confidential and is not referenced in published case studies. Published case studies only cover matters where the operator was a direct counterparty (his own losses) or matters that are already extensively documented in public records (SEC enforcement, court filings).
See the Privacy Policy for full details.
The operator is Patrick James Crosby, an independent forensic researcher based in Washington State. He is not licensed to practice law, not a credentialed financial advisor, and not a CPA. He is a researcher who has built deep forensic-investigation experience the hard way — partly by being defrauded himself in 2018 (UULALA) and again in 2020 (VeChain), and partly by reconstructing those chains across years.
His analytical contribution to reports reflects experience-based judgment, not credentialed opinion. Reports are intended for use by licensed counsel; the operator does not provide legal services.
His patent applications (USPTO #19/537,449 and #19/540,790) on post-quantum cryptography defense are publicly searchable. The cryptography research is what's documented at the Zenodo DOI.
For the single-transaction Forensic Report: pay with a credit card via standard online checkout (link sent after report scope is confirmed), OR pay with cryptocurrency directly to operator wallet addresses listed on the Crypto Quote page.
For Bespoke Engagements: same options, with invoicing arranged via email after scope is confirmed.
The operator does not custody your cryptocurrency, hold your card information, or have access to your wallet keys at any time.
Because the case studies are honest about who lost the money: he did. Both the UULALA case (2018, ~$17,000 lost) and the VeChain case (2020, ~$15,000 lost) are the operator's own losses, published with his explicit consent.
That choice is deliberate. Most pro-se scam victims face two problems: they don't know forensic tradecraft, and they don't know whether the people offering to help them have actually done the work. The operator's response to both problems was to do the forensic work on his own losses first, then make the methodology and outcomes public.
It's the "I lived through this; the methodology is built from that" credential, not a "trust me with no track record" pitch.
index.html as a new section. Two natural placement options: (a) between "What L0gic Verify does NOT do" scope-discipline section and "Case study" section — FAQ provides buyer-readable context before the case study makes the technical pitch; or (b) between "Case study" and "Pricing" — FAQ addresses lingering questions right before the commitment moment. My lean: (b) — buyer-journey arc closes more tightly when FAQ sits immediately before pricing.