See the firms you supervise clearly.
Check applications, regulatory returns, and firm activity against independent entity and blockchain intelligence to assess risk and inform licensing and examination decisions.
Problem
A firm's disclosures are only part of the picture.
Applications need independent verification.
Ownership, customers, and operating activity need corroboration beyond what the applicant provides.
Policies alone cannot show whether controls work.
Examiners need to compare transaction samples and observed exposure with the firm's screening, monitoring, and reporting records.
Examination time is limited.
Gathering evidence across separate sources takes time, leaving teams with less capacity to assess risk and prioritize reviews.
281 / 1,343
MiCA authorization
Operating EEA crypto service providers authorized when grandfathering ended on July 1, 2026.
Source: TRM Labs · EU VASPs After MiCA
90% / 76%
Regime versus operation
Share of 67 FATF-reviewed jurisdictions that had enacted or were enacting a licensing regime, versus those that had licensed or registered a VASP.
What is Ardence?
Ardence is an AI investigation platform built for all-source intelligence. For licensing and supervision, teams can compare applications and regulatory returns with independent ownership, operational, and financial evidence to inform their reviews.
How it works
Test the firm's claims against independent evidence.
Verify
Check who owns the applicant, where it operates, and whether available evidence supports its reported customer profile and activity. Use discrepancies to focus follow-up questions before a licensing decision.
- Corroborate the legal entity, principals, and beneficial ownership
- Compare declared markets, services, and customer profile with available independent evidence
- Prepare focused questions for the applicant and licensing team
Prioritize
Review applications, complaints, and available risk information alongside independent evidence. Use the findings to assess which concerns need follow-up and where to direct examination time.
- Review available ownership, operating activity, and counterparty exposure information
- Assess which discrepancies or complaints warrant further examination
- Document the basis for prioritizing a firm or concern
Examine
Compare sample transactions and observed exposure with the firm's risk assessment, screening, monitoring, and reporting records. A discrepancy gives examiners a question to test; exposure alone does not establish a control failure.
- Review sample transactions and attributed wallets for counterparty exposure
- Check how the firm assessed and handled the risks identified in those samples
- Identify gaps that require explanation, remediation, or further testing
Document
Keep source records, the firm's explanations, and examination findings together. Document how the evidence informs a licensing decision, a request for clarification, or further controls testing.
- Tie each conclusion to its source and examination evidence
- Record the firm's response and the supervisor's assessment
- Prepare the final finding, remediation request, or licensing decision
Verify
Check who owns the applicant, where it operates, and whether available evidence supports its reported customer profile and activity. Use discrepancies to focus follow-up questions before a licensing decision.
- Corroborate the legal entity, principals, and beneficial ownership
- Compare declared markets, services, and customer profile with available independent evidence
- Prepare focused questions for the applicant and licensing team
Prioritize
Review applications, complaints, and available risk information alongside independent evidence. Use the findings to assess which concerns need follow-up and where to direct examination time.
- Review available ownership, operating activity, and counterparty exposure information
- Assess which discrepancies or complaints warrant further examination
- Document the basis for prioritizing a firm or concern
Examine
Compare sample transactions and observed exposure with the firm's risk assessment, screening, monitoring, and reporting records. A discrepancy gives examiners a question to test; exposure alone does not establish a control failure.
- Review sample transactions and attributed wallets for counterparty exposure
- Check how the firm assessed and handled the risks identified in those samples
- Identify gaps that require explanation, remediation, or further testing
Document
Keep source records, the firm's explanations, and examination findings together. Document how the evidence informs a licensing decision, a request for clarification, or further controls testing.
- Tie each conclusion to its source and examination evidence
- Record the firm's response and the supervisor's assessment
- Prepare the final finding, remediation request, or licensing decision
Intelligence
Intelligence built for licensing and supervision.
Entity and ownership intelligence
Test who the firm is and where it operates.
Corroborate legal identity, beneficial ownership, operating locations, and services against independent records. Use the findings to assess the firm's disclosures and focus questions about its business and customers.
Blockchain intelligence
Compare reported activity with observed behavior.
Examine attributed wallets, sample transactions, and counterparty exposure alongside the firm's screening, monitoring, and reporting records. Use differences to guide controls testing and follow-up questions.
All-source intelligence
Dozens of data partners. One investigation platform.
Ardence brings intelligence from TRM and specialized data providers into one investigation under a single Ardence contract.¹
Use Ardence to analyse company records, ownership information, websites and licensing registers alongside applications and regulatory returns. Commercial partner intelligence and open-source information help teams corroborate disclosures and examine questions that the firm's own records leave unanswered, subject to each source's permitted-use and disclosure restrictions.
¹ Provider availability varies by customer and jurisdiction. Supplemental terms may apply.
Services
Expert support and training for supervisors.
- Contact us
Specialist support for supervisory reviews
Work with TRM specialists to interpret a firm's digital-asset activity and examine the financial evidence behind its disclosures. Your team directs the review and evaluates what the findings mean for its supervisory decisions.
- Learn more
TRM Academy
Build skills in interpreting blockchain activity and reviewing financial evidence through TRM Academy.
Questions
FAQ
Start with the application and the applicant's legal name, declared jurisdiction, principals, licences, services, currencies, and expected activity. TRM helps compare those claims with independent entity and blockchain intelligence.
TRM helps teams compare available entity and financial intelligence with applications, complaints, and regulatory returns. Supervisors assess the findings against their own risk framework and decide which firms or concerns warrant closer review.
Examiners can compare sample transactions and observed counterparty exposure with the firm's risk assessment, alerts, and reporting records. The evidence helps them ask whether the firm identified and handled the risks appropriately. Examiners evaluate any discrepancy in context before reaching a finding.
Ardence brings applications, corporate records, and other external evidence into the supervisory review. Forensics provides deeper crypto tracing and analysis when a firm's digital-asset activity needs examination. Your authority evaluates the findings and makes the supervisory decision.
TRM provides independent intelligence that teams can assess alongside applications, firm responses, and examination records. The authority determines what further review is needed and makes licensing and supervisory decisions under its own framework.
Licensing and Supervision is written for the authority overseeing regulated firms. Financial Crime Compliance covers the screening, monitoring, investigation, and reporting program run by the regulated firm itself.
Insights
Analysis for supervisors and licensing teams.
EU VASPs after MiCA
Authorization rates and illicit exposure across the EEA's operating crypto service providers.
How regulators can detect unregistered VASPs
Methods for finding firms that serve a jurisdiction without appearing on its register.
Elevating ongoing AML supervision
How supervisors can review declared addresses, alert samples, and ownership, counterparty, and indirect risk.
