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 State, Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2004 · Fabrication

Munshani v. Signal Lake Venture Fund II, LP

60 Mass. App. Ct. 714 (2004)

What happened

The plaintiff brought a $25 million claim asserting entitlement to stock warrants based on a single email allegedly sent by the defendant's CEO. The defendant challenged the authenticity of the email. The court appointed a neutral computer forensics expert, who filed a 147-page report concluding that the email was "clearly not authentic": server logs, email header metadata and other technical indicators proved that the email had been fabricated. The case was dismissed for fraud on the court. The plaintiff was subsequently criminally indicted for fraud arising from the fabricated email. The case became a leading US authority on email forgery as fraud on the court and is extensively cited in academic literature on electronic evidence authentication. It illustrates that even a single fabricated email, produced from a party's own email client, can be comprehensively exposed through server-level log analysis.

“The email was clearly not authentic.”

From the judgment

Outcome

Dismissed for fraud on the court. Criminal fraud indictment followed. Leading US authority on email-forgery as fraud on the court.

Sources

Secondary source

AnalysisMassachusetts Appeals Court: 60 Mass. App. Ct. 714

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