Preserve evidence when an NFT project disappears

Save records you can lawfully access

Practical checklist · not an audit of another provider

Keep purchase receipts, transaction hashes, the collection's contract address and copies of terms or messages already available to you. Record the time and timezone of screenshots. Preserve originals rather than editing over them. A deleted website may remove context, so a dated copy of the specific promise can be more useful than a later recollection.

Separate observations from explanations

Practical checklist · not an audit of another provider

Write down what you observed: a page stopped loading, a promised benefit was not delivered or a particular transfer appeared. Keep claims about who controlled a wallet or why a project stopped in a separate section with their sources. The Frosties complaint illustrates the importance of connecting promises, timing and fund movements rather than relying on a label alone.

Use verified reporting channels

Practical checklist · not an audit of another provider

The FBI recommends including transaction identifiers, addresses, amounts, dates and communications in a fraud report. Do not send another payment to restore access or to a person promising guaranteed recovery. Avoid publishing private information or accusing unrelated collections with similar names. An organised evidence record helps an authority assess the facts without requiring you to establish the entire case yourself.

Keep a project-by-project loss record

Practical checklist · not an audit of another provider

Use separate entries for each collection, contract and purchase. Record what you paid, when, in which asset and the transaction identifier. Put a future sale target in a separate contextual note, never in the sum of your completed payments. Preserve the original offer and communications about promised benefits, then label which statements come from a complaint and which are your own records. If later reporting mentions a plea, verify the named defendant and court document before changing the legal-status field for both creators.

Keep your incident record separate from the prosecution timeline

Practical checklist · not an audit of another provider

For Nguyen, link the March 2025 plea and forfeiture entry to his own court order. For Llacuna, label the plea as reported unless you have the underlying record. Keep the January 2026 amended-order listing in a follow-up column until its full text is checked. Do not mistake Storm’s separate case for either sentencing judgment. For recovery records, distinguish payments you made from forfeiture to the government; neither a plea nor a forfeiture amount proves a refund was arranged.

Record checked on 25 October 2026

Nguyen’s March 2025 plea and forfeiture are verified in the reproduced court order. A January 2026 amended forfeiture order is listed, but its full text was not obtained. Llacuna’s plea remains attributed to courtroom reporting; complete sentencing judgments for both defendants were not obtained.