immut is the Evidence Trust Layer. It sits underneath your existing compliance tools and anchors every file to the XRP Ledger blockchain with a precise timestamp. This creates tamper-evident, independently verifiable proof that a document existed at a specific moment — court-admissible in 88 countries.

Is blockchain evidence accepted in court?

Yes. Blockchain-anchored evidence has been accepted as legal evidence in US Federal Court (US v. Sterlingov, 2024), the EUIPO across all 27 EU member states (AZ Factory v. Valeria Moda, 2025), China's Supreme People's Court (1,400+ IP cases since 2018), and under EU Regulation 2025/2531. immut certificates are accepted in 88 countries and 171 jurisdictions.

Does my file leave my device?

No. immut generates a SHA-256 hash of your file on your own device. Only the hash is recorded on the blockchain. Your original file never leaves your infrastructure. Public proof. Private work.

Does immut replace Vanta or Drata?

No. immut is the proof layer that sits underneath your existing compliance tools. Vanta and Drata collect your evidence. immut proves when that evidence existed. They complement each other — immut adds the independent timestamp your compliance platform cannot provide.

Which compliance standards does immut support?

immut produces records that satisfy evidence requirements in ISO 27001, ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 45001, SOC 2, GDPR, HMRC R&D, HSE health and safety, KYC/AML, EU AI Act, HIPAA, and more. Any standard that requires dated, tamper-evident records is supported.

What happens if immut shuts down?

Every certificate already issued remains independently verifiable on the public XRP Ledger. The proof does not depend on immut existing. A regulator, a judge, or opposing counsel can verify your certificate on the public blockchain at any time, with or without immut.

Evidence Record

UK High Court, Family Division · 2021 · Fabrication

Akhmedova v. Akhmedov

[2021] EWHC 545 (Fam)

Backdated documentDocument metadata

What happened

Following the UK's then-largest matrimonial financial settlement (£453 million), the respondent sought to evade enforcement by claiming a prior Russian divorce had already resolved the financial matters. Russian-language divorce documents purportedly dated to 2000 were produced in support of this claim. Forensic analysis of the documents revealed features inconsistent with their claimed date, and the court found that the documentation had been fabricated specifically to defeat enforcement of the UK award. The judgment was given by Mrs Justice Knowles. In addition to the main respondent, the parties' son was found to have knowingly assisted in the concealment scheme and was ordered to pay substantial sums personally. The case illustrates that high-value document fabrication extends beyond commercial disputes into the highest-value family proceedings, and that centralised document creation provides no independent proof of when a record was actually created.

Outcome

Fabrication proven. UK's largest divorce award upheld. Son ordered to pay over $100M for assisting the concealment scheme.

Sources

Authority source confirmed

AuthJudiciary UK: judgment page

AuthJudgment PDF: [2021] EWHC 545

Public proof. Private work.

immut records a cryptographic hash of your file on the public XRP Ledger at the moment of creation. The timestamp is independently verifiable by anyone.

Anchor your evidence

Evidence Record

See all 43 rulings on record.

Jurisdiction filters, evidence-type filters, and authority sources linked on every case.

Back to all cases|Get started free