A strong legal position starts with facts that can be verified
BLACKFILE helps legal teams reconstruct the factual picture of a dispute, verify the parties' claims, identify independent sources and prepare structured materials for further legal assessment.
We do not act as counsel and do not determine the admissibility of evidence. The work is structured around an agreed question, jurisdiction, procedural stage and rules for handling materials.
No documents are required at the first stage. It is enough to describe the stage of the dispute and the question that needs to be checked.
01CLAIM
02QUESTION
03SOURCE
04FINDING
05LIMIT
06FOR COUNSEL
02 / ПРОБЛЕМА
A large volume of documents does not become a strong position without a verifiable structure
A dispute rarely lacks information. More often the materials are scattered, dates contradict one another, an important fact rests on a single source, and a material claim is mixed with legal assessment.
Analytical support turns the volume of material into a map of questions: what is claimed, what it can be checked against, what information contradicts the version, and where a gap remains.
A party's claim, a publication and a coincidence are not yet a fact. What makes them a fact is a source that can be named and verified.
03 / MATRIX
Each claim follows the same path to the row "For counsel's assessment"
Claim to Evidence Matrix - a working map of the dispute. Select a claim to see the verifiable question, the source, the result of the check, the limitation and what the legal team does with it.
CLAIM TO EVIDENCE MATRIX
Verifiable question
Are there independent traces of activity during this period?
Source and date accessed
Corporate register, publications, industry data
Verification result
Traces of activity during the disputed period are present
Limitation
The publication confirms the fact of activity, but not its volume or the nature of the operations.
For counsel's assessment
A discrepancy with the party's position that is worth raising as a question.
Verifiable question
Who had authority and signed documents as of the decision date?
Source and date accessed
Registry information on authority, documents provided
Verification result
Authority is confirmed, sole decision-making is not
Limitation
Internal minutes are not available to the party, collegiality has not been verified.
For counsel's assessment
There is a basis, but the wording on sole decision-making should be softened.
Verifiable question
Were there changes in the structure and when exactly?
Source and date accessed
History of records in the jurisdiction's corporate register
Verification result
Changes are recorded, dates established
Limitation
The register reflects legal ownership, but not economic interest.
For counsel's assessment
A solid basis: the dates are confirmed by a public record.
Verifiable question
Who is the asset registered to and are there signs of a connection?
Source and date accessed
Public property registers in accessible jurisdictions
Verification result
Registered to another person; the connection is an analytical assessment
Limitation
Ownership by a person to whom the asset is not registered cannot be asserted
For counsel's assessment
Suitable as a basis for a request, not as a statement of ownership.
Verifiable question
Is there independent confirmation of the sending date?
Source and date accessed
Only the party's materials; no independent source found
Verification result
Could not be verified with available sources
Limitation
Confirmation can only come from the telecom operator or from the case file.
For counsel's assessment
The question is to be closed by a procedural request, not by analysis.
C-01
The company did not conduct activity during the disputed period
Contradicted by independent information
Verifiable question
Are there independent traces of activity during this period?
Source and date accessed
Corporate register, publications, industry data
Verification result
Traces of activity during the disputed period are present
Limitation
The publication confirms the fact of activity, but not its volume or the nature of the operations.
For counsel's assessment
A discrepancy with the party's position that is worth raising as a question.
C-02
The decision was made by a specific director
Partially confirmed
Verifiable question
Who had authority and signed documents as of the decision date?
Source and date accessed
Registry information on authority, documents provided
Verification result
Authority is confirmed, sole decision-making is not
Limitation
Internal minutes are not available to the party, collegiality has not been verified.
For counsel's assessment
There is a basis, but the wording on sole decision-making should be softened.
C-03
The ownership structure did not change
Confirmed by an available source
Verifiable question
Were there changes in the structure and when exactly?
Source and date accessed
History of records in the jurisdiction's corporate register
Verification result
Changes are recorded, dates established
Limitation
The register reflects legal ownership, but not economic interest.
For counsel's assessment
A solid basis: the dates are confirmed by a public record.
C-04
The asset belongs to a connected person
Partially confirmed
Verifiable question
Who is the asset registered to and are there signs of a connection?
Source and date accessed
Public property registers in accessible jurisdictions
Verification result
Registered to another person; the connection is an analytical assessment
Limitation
Ownership by a person to whom the asset is not registered cannot be asserted
For counsel's assessment
Suitable as a basis for a request, not as a statement of ownership.
C-05
The notice was sent on time
Open question: insufficient sources
Verifiable question
Is there independent confirmation of the sending date?
Source and date accessed
Only the party's materials; no independent source found
Verification result
Could not be verified with available sources
Limitation
Confirmation can only come from the telecom operator or from the case file.
For counsel's assessment
The question is to be closed by a procedural request, not by analysis.
The rows are an anonymized working example of structure, not materials from an actual matter. The single material contradiction is marked in red.
The matrix does not state that the material is admissible in court. It shows what each statement rests on and what the legal team should do with it. Admissibility is determined by counsel qualified in the relevant jurisdiction.
04 / WHEN WE COME IN
The point at which we come in changes both the scope of work and its cost
The earlier the factual basis is verified, the less the position has to be reworked as the proceedings progress.
EarliestThe cheapest and most effective point of engagement
While a position has not yet been fixed procedurally, it is cheaper to adjust it: which statements withstand verification and which rest on a single source
Statements are broken down into verifiable questions, and for each an independent source is sought or a discrepancy is recorded
Establishing location and ownership within the bounds of a lawful task and available jurisdictions
In progressWork proceeds in parallel with a position already asserted
Dates, decisions, contracts and payments are arranged in sequence and tied to sources
Who owned, who managed and how this changed: legal ownership is distinguished from indications of factual control
Collection of available information on assets and structures before an application is filed; the legal assessment is provided by counsel
After the decisionThe focus shifts to enforcement and the currency of the information
Verification of what is known about assets and structures in each country of enforcement, with information updated at each stage.
Data that is two years old may no longer be accurate: registers change, companies are liquidated, assets change hands.
SOURCE LOG
Every fact in the report has a line: where it came from, when it was accessed, and what that source does not confirm.
The Source Log records the origin of the material, the date of access, the level of confirmation, and the limitations. It does not replace an attorney's procedural assessment.
05 / WHAT IS ESTABLISHED
Eight things that can be verified through lawful sources
The composition depends on the jurisdiction and the availability of sources. Each result is assigned a level of confirmation and a limitation.
01
Corporate roles and connections as of a specific date
Not "now", but as of the date of the disputed event: registers retain history, and it often differs from the current extract.
02
Timeline of decisions, contracts, payments and publications
A sequence linked to sources and the confirmation level of each event.
03
Location of a person within a lawful task
Only on lawful grounds and from available sources, without surveillance or intrusion into private life.
04
Assets and property interests based on available sources
Property registers, corporate assets and encumbrances in the jurisdictions where they are disclosed.
05
Discrepancies between statements and independent data
The most valuable result in a dispute: a point where a party's version does not match an external source.
06
Origin and reliability of a public statement
Who published it first, what it referenced, and whether the source was repeated through self-citing reprints.
07
Historical changes in ownership and management
When and how owners and managers changed, and whether these dates coincide with events in the dispute.
08
Gaps the client or counsel must close
A direct list: what cannot be established by analysis and requires a procedural request or a court decision.
What is not on this list
BLACKFILE does not obtain materials by unlawful means, does not interfere with the other party's communications, and does not promise chain of custody where one is not actually maintained. The term forensic is used only when the relevant specialist and process are involved.
06 / ROUTE
The work begins with a written question, not with a set of documents
The route runs through three phases and two checkpoints. Until a checkpoint is passed, the next stage does not begin.
PHASE 1Framing and verifying the task
01
Written question from the legal team
What exactly needs to be verified and for what procedural task. A verbal formulation of the question is converted into a written one before work begins.
02
Verification of jurisdiction, authority and conflict of interest
The applicable limitations, the client's authority, and the absence of any conflict on BLACKFILE's own part are assessed.
Outcome of the phase: the written question, jurisdiction and scope of work are fixed.
SCOPE GATEQuestion and jurisdiction fixed
Without a written question, a jurisdiction check and a conflict of interest check, the search does not begin.
PHASE 2Analytical work
03
Map of statements and facts sought
The parties' positions are broken down into verifiable questions: fact separated from legal assessment.
04
Register of provided and open sources
Every source is recorded with its origin, date of access, and what it does not confirm.
05
Search, verification and cross-referencing
Client materials are cross-checked against independent data; discrepancies are recorded, not smoothed over.
06
Verification of key conclusions by a second source
A material conclusion does not rest on a single document. If no second source exists, the status of the conclusion changes.
Outcome of the phase: every material conclusion has a source and a confirmation status.
SECOND SOURCE GATEMaterial conclusion confirmed by a second source
If there is no second source, the status of the conclusion is downgraded explicitly, not left unstated.
PHASE 3Working session and handover
07
Working session with lawyers
Review of the matrix together with the legal team: what can be used, what requires a request, what is removed.
08
Final matrix, appendices and limitations
The final material in an agreed structure with an explicit list of what remains unverified.
Outcome of the phase: the legal team has received the material and knows what remains unverified.
COUNSEL HANDOFFMaterial handed over to the legal team
Along with the material, the limitations and questions requiring a legal decision are handed over.
Procedural actions, disclosure and requests are carried out by the client's legal team. BLACKFILE prepares the factual part and does not act on behalf of a party in proceedings.
07 / WHO WE WORK WITH
The client is the legal team, not a party to the dispute directly
Most often the task is set by a lawyer or in-house counsel. This is not a requirement, but it makes it easier to maintain the boundary between fact and legal assessment.
A
Lawyers and law firms
"What in the other side's position will withstand scrutiny?" What is needed is sources and the limits of confidence, not ready-made conclusions.
B
In-house counsel
"Is it worth pursuing this dispute at all?" A factual basis is needed before the position is fixed procedurally.
C
Owners and management
"Why is counsel requesting these particular documents?" A map is needed showing where the position is weak.
D
Banks, funds and creditors
"What is known about the debtor's assets today?" Current information is needed, not a two-year-old extract.
E
Arbitration and compliance teams
"What does the timeline look like for the tribunal?" A sequence is needed with sources and access dates.
F
Local counsel in other jurisdictions
"What is available in my jurisdiction on this matter?" Coordination and a single material format are needed.
If a party to a dispute sets the task directly, we still recommend involving the legal team before materials are handed over: this affects how the result can be used.
08 / RESULT
Material in the structure used by the legal team
Nine parts of varying weight: the lead sections set out the position, the rest support it.
LITIGATION FILEPosition and questions
01
Executive summary for the legal team
What has been established, what is disputed, where the gap lies, and what decisions are required from counsel.
02
Map of statements and questions
The parties' positions broken down into verifiable questions, with the current status of each.
Facts and sources
03
Timeline with sources
Events with dates, linked to sources and level of confirmation.
04
Profiles of related persons and companies
Roles, authority and connections as of the relevant dates, without attributing intent.
05
Asset map within the accessible scope
What is disclosed in accessible jurisdictions and what is absent from open sources.
06
Source log with access date
Every source with its origin, date of access, and the limit of what it confirms.
Handover to the legal team
07
List of confirmations, contradictions and gaps
Three separate lists, so that confidence is not mixed with assumption.
08
Appendices in an agreed structure
Materials in the order and format convenient for the legal team.
09
List of questions requiring a legal decision
What analysis cannot resolve: admissibility, strategy, procedural steps.
What the material looks like
00Cover
01Executive summary
02Timeline
03Claim matrix
04Source log
05Limitations
A schematic view of the structure. The texts inside are illustrative: actual case materials are not shown.
The structure is agreed before work begins. Requirements for collecting, retaining and disclosing materials in a specific jurisdiction are determined by the client's counsel.
09 / COMPOSITE EXAMPLE
Dispute over actual control of a company
Composite example. Circumstances have been combined and altered. It illustrates the method of work and does not describe a specific client
The legal team received a formal ownership structure that did not explain who made the key decisions and financed the activity. BLACKFILE reconstructed historical roles, structural changes, related companies and a publicly verifiable timeline.
The report did not name a person as the beneficial owner as a fact established by a court. It showed confirmed connections, indicators of economic control, alternative explanations and questions that lawyers could use in further work.
Each layer can be removed separately: what is visible through the stack, and what is confirmed only on its own sheet.
The value of the material was not in the conclusion about the owner, but in the fact that every part of it had a named source and a clear limit.
Layers of a single question
L-01Legal ownership
Registry entry: documented confirmation
L-02Structural changes by date
Registry history: confirmed, dates established
L-03Related companies and shared addresses
Open sources: partially confirmed
L-04Indicators of economic control
Analytical assessment with confidence level indicated
L-05Beneficial owner
A question for the court, not the analyst's conclusion
10 / ENGAGEMENT FORMAT
Scope is determined by the question, the number of parties, countries and depth of verification
Three engagement formats are visible immediately. The cost is quoted after the question has been assessed: before that, any figure would be invented.
Differences in five seconds
Verification of a single statement
Questions
1 question
Jurisdictions
1 jurisdiction
Result format
verified memo
Interaction
one delivery of results
The factual scope of the dispute
Questions
a group of related questions
Jurisdictions
one or several companies
Result format
litigation file and working session
Interaction
update at agreed stages
International support
Questions
several jurisdictions
Jurisdictions
local sources
Result format
coordination with legal teams
Interaction
separate versions of materials by country
02The position as a whole
The factual scope of the dispute
Individual estimate after assessment of the question
We compile the factual basis of the dispute in full: claims, chronology, connections and sources.
a map of claims and facts to be established
a chronology tied to sources
profiles of individuals and companies
a source matrix with the date of access
report and working session with attorneys
The legal team has a verifiable factual basis for the strategy.
01One question
Verification of a single statement
Individual estimate after assessment of the question
We check whether one statement made by the other party holds up.
written formulation of the question
a limited range of sources
verified memo
a list of limitations of the verification
a decision on whether a full scope is required
The legal team will know whether the position can be built on this statement.
03Multiple countries
International support
Individual estimate after assessment of the question
We handle the factual part where a dispute is proceeding in several countries at once.
checking source availability by country
coordination with local counsel
stage-by-stage updates to materials
separate extracts for each jurisdiction
a list of questions for local law
The factual component holds where proceedings run in several countries at once.
The subject matter, sources, budget and completion criteria are agreed before each stage begins. The timeline starts once the question has been formulated in writing and the jurisdiction verified.
11 / LEGAL LIMITS
Where analysis ends and the lawyer's work begins
BLACKFILE prepares the factual part of a dispute. Legal strategy, admissibility of evidence, procedural decisions and representation remain with the client's legal team. This boundary is stated before work begins, because it determines how the result can be used.
What we do not do
we do not provide legal services unless separately arranged through an authorized specialist
we do not determine the admissibility of evidence
we do not guarantee the outcome of a dispute, an interim measure or recovery
we do not obtain materials by unlawful means
we do not interfere with the other party's communications
we do not publish confidential case materials
we do not treat a party's statement, a publication or a coincidence as an established fact
Example of a single jurisdiction
Below are the disclosure rules in England and Wales. This is an example of how closely the process can be regulated, not a universal standard: these requirements cannot be transferred to other countries. For a specific jurisdiction, the applicable rules are verified against an official local source.
Когда нужноThe decision to proceed with a dispute has not yet been made, and the prospects need to be assessed on the facts.
Чем отличаетсяLitigation Support operates under a procedural question that has already been set. A pre-litigation check answers an earlier question: whether to start at all.
Generally, before filing a claim. Before a position is fixed procedurally, it is cheaper to adjust: it becomes visible which statements rest on independent sources and which rest only on the client's materials. Bringing analysts in during proceedings also works, but then some conclusions have to be checked in parallel with a position already stated, and that costs more.
Yes, and this is the usual engagement format. The task is set by the legal team in a written question, and the legal team receives the result and decides how to use it. If a party to the dispute approaches directly, we recommend involving a lawyer before materials are transferred: this affects both how the question is framed and how the result can be used in proceedings.
Yes, this is a separate engagement format. One question, a limited set of sources, and a short verified memo: what is confirmed, what is not, what is missing, and what the limitations of the check are. This is often enough to decide whether to build a position on that statement or look for another basis.
Each line in the matrix has its own status and its own limit. A fact is something confirmed by a named source with the date of access. An analytical assessment is marked as an assessment, with a stated level of confidence. A hypothesis is called a hypothesis. In the report, these three levels are never merged into a single conclusion, because such a conclusion falls apart at the first check.
Searching through lawful and accessible sources is possible at any stage: property registries, corporate data, publications. But the scope depends heavily on jurisdiction, and the result remains information from open sources. Interim measures, requests, and disclosure are procedural tools, and these are applied by the lawyer.
The transfer channel, the circle of access, the retention period, and the procedure for return or deletion are agreed before work begins. Case materials are not published and are not used in other projects. There is no need to send documents through the open form on the website: the initial assessment is made based on a description of the question.
The factual part carries over, the requirements for form and disclosure do not. Rules differ from country to country, so in an international dispute the materials are usually assembled in a common structure, with extracts prepared separately for each jurisdiction. Applicability in a specific country is confirmed by local counsel.
Evidence Collection is the gathering, description, and organization of materials according to set criteria. Litigation Support is broader: we work with the parties' statements, look for independent sources, build timelines and connections, and show where a position diverges from external data. The two services are often combined: first the collected material, then its verification and structure.
14 / INITIAL ASSESSMENT
Describe the stage of the dispute and the question. Tell us what part of it can lawfully be checked.
No documents are needed at the first stage. Do not send case materials, personal data, or correspondence through the open form.
