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, Chancery Division · 2024 · Fabrication

COPA v. Wright

[2024] EWHC 1198 (Ch); contempt [2024] EWHC 3315 (Ch)

Backdated documentEmailDocument metadata

What happened

Craig Wright claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, and produced extensive documentation to support that claim across multiple proceedings. Forensic analysis by the court-appointed expert and opposing counsel identified 47 separate forgeries in Wright's evidentiary bundle. Key failures included metadata timestamps that postdated the purported 2008 creation date, LaTeX typesetting packages not released until after 2008, and font versions that did not exist when the documents were claimed to have been created. The court found that Wright had systematically produced false documents in furtherance of a calculated and dishonest litigation strategy. A declaration was issued that Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto. The judgment also resulted in referrals to the Crown Prosecution Service for perjury, and a subsequent contempt judgment followed as Wright continued to disobey court orders. The case is one of the most comprehensive judicial findings of digital document fabrication in UK legal history.

“The documents produced by Dr Wright… contain anachronistic features, inconsistent metadata, fonts and typesetting from later years. I find that he has engaged in the deliberate production of false documents.”

From the judgment

Outcome

Wright declared not Satoshi Nakamoto. Worldwide anti-suit injunction granted. Referrals to CPS for perjury. Later contempt findings.

Sources

Authority source confirmed

AuthJudiciary UK: judgment page

AuthJudgment PDF: [2024] EWHC 1198

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