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

US Federal, Southern District of Florida · 2021 · Fabrication

Kleiman v. Wright

(S.D. Fla. 2019-2021)

EmailBackdated documentDocument metadata

What happened

W&K Info Defense Research and the estate of David Kleiman brought a claim against Craig Wright asserting a co-ownership interest in Bitcoin mined by Wright and Kleiman together. Wright produced extensive documentation to defeat the claim. Magistrate Judge Reinhart found a "wilful and bad faith pattern" of conduct, including the filing of a false declaration and the knowing production of at least one fraudulent document. Forensic analysis exposed multiple anachronisms: emails purportedly from 2011 bore fonts that were not copyrighted until 2015, and other documents showed metadata inconsistencies that placed their creation after the dates they purported to bear. A sanctions order followed. At trial, the jury found Wright liable for $100 million to the W&K estate. The case, running in parallel with the UK COPA proceedings, illustrates the systemic nature of document fabrication operations where centralised, party-controlled records are the sole evidence of claimed historical facts.

Outcome

Sanctions order. Jury found Wright liable for $100M to the W&K estate.

Sources

Secondary source

AnalysisDecrypt: case analysis with judicial citations

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