Custody and control review: what the decision maker looks at
A custody and control review checks who actually held the keys, the wallet access, or the equivalent control right at each stage of a transfer or dispute. The decision maker does not ask who claims ownership on paper. The decision maker asks who could move the asset, and when. That distinction decides most outcomes.
Readers who want to move straight to a formal request can start with Ordering a report: what we need from you, which lists the documents a report of this kind requires before work begins. The steps below describe what happens once the review itself opens.
What changes once the review starts
Once a custody dispute is opened, the clock on informal negotiation stops. The decision maker treats every message, log entry and transfer record from that point as part of the file. Statements made informally before the review are weighed differently from statements made after it, because the parties are on notice that the record now matters.
The practical effect is that both sides lose some flexibility. A platform cannot quietly correct a log after the review starts without that correction being visible and questioned. A client cannot change their account of events without the earlier version being on file. This is the point most people underestimate: the review changes incentives before it changes outcomes.
Stages of the review
The stages below reflect how a decision maker typically structures this kind of review. Duration depends on the volume of records and on whether the other side cooperates.
| Stage | What happens | Typical duration |
|---|---|---|
| Intake | The file is opened, the custody arrangement is identified, and every party with a claim is listed. | 1–2 business days |
| Document check | Wallet records, transfer logs and any prior authorisation are checked against what the platform or custodian holds. | 3–5 business days |
| Control assessment | The decision maker tests who actually held the private key, the multisignature share, or the equivalent access right at each relevant point in time. | 5–10 business days |
| Response window | The other side is given a fixed period to reply, submit its own records, or object to the assessment. | Commonly 10–14 business days |
| Decision and point of no return | The decision maker records the finding. After this point the file moves to enforcement or to closure, not back to negotiation. | Fixed date, stated in the decision |
The point of no return matters more than the total duration. Once the decision maker records a finding on control, reopening it requires new evidence, not a new argument on the same facts.
What to do
- Collect wallet-level records first, not account-level summaries. The decision maker asks for the underlying transaction data, not a platform dashboard export.
- Identify every custodian and sub-custodian in the chain before submitting anything. A missing intermediary is the most common reason a first submission is returned.
- Fix the timeline in writing before the review opens a formal window. Dates matter more than descriptions in a control dispute.
- Instruct one point of contact on your side. Multiple contacts submitting separately slow the intake stage and create inconsistencies the other side can use.
- Flag any cross-border element early. If the custodian, the client, or the asset sits in a different jurisdiction from the review itself, the decision maker needs this at intake, not later.
- Keep a copy of everything submitted, in the form submitted. Reformatted or summarised copies are not treated as equivalent to the originals.
Who decides and how long it takes
The decision maker is whichever forum has been agreed for the custody arrangement in question — this is typically named in the custody agreement or the platform's terms, and it varies by provider and by contract. Where no forum is named, the review defaults to whichever body has jurisdiction over the custodian's registered activity.
Total time from intake to decision runs from roughly three to eight weeks in straightforward files, and considerably longer where the other side does not cooperate or where records sit with more than one custodian. A fixed submission deadline is set at intake and does not move once set, except by the decision maker's own extension.
Branches
If the custodian is unresponsive at intake, the review proceeds on the records the requesting party can produce alone, and the decision maker draws its own inference from the gap. This inference is rarely favourable to the silent party.
If control passed through more than one platform during the relevant period, each platform is asked separately for its slice of the record. The decision maker does not accept one platform's account of another platform's holding period without independent confirmation.
If the issuer of the underlying token moves its place of registration while the review is open, the file does not automatically transfer with it. The situation is close to the one described in The issuer changes jurisdiction token issuance the deadline that, and the same caution on deadlines applies here: a jurisdiction change does not pause the clock on the current review.
Related publications
A closely related situation arises when a chain fork or a migration event happens during an open custody dispute, because control can shift without either party intending it. That situation is covered separately in How fork and migration handling tokenised rights what the.
Sources and limits
This page describes how a custody and control review is typically structured. It does not tell you what a decision maker will find in your specific file, and it does not replace legal advice tied to your facts. Where the underlying asset or debtor sits in a specific jurisdiction, a report narrows that gap. For an asset located in Lithuania, see Asset in Lithuania and its limits. For a debtor located in Poland, see Debtor in Poland.
This page also does not cover valuation, tax treatment, or the commercial terms of a custody agreement. Those questions sit outside a control review and need a separate instruction.
Verified
Checked: 4 June 2025. Primary sources for this page are internal registry records on how custody and control reviews are conducted in practice, together with publicly available disclosures from custody providers active in the jurisdictions this review covers. No article-level or regulation-level citation is given on this page, because the procedural detail here is drawn from practice rather than from a single named provision.
FAQ
How long does custody and control review take in practice?
Most straightforward files run three to eight weeks from intake to decision. Files with more than one custodian, or with an unresponsive party, take longer, because each additional record source adds its own response window.
Which documents are needed to start?
Wallet-level transaction records, the custody agreement or platform terms in force at the relevant time, and a written timeline of events. Account-level summaries alone are not sufficient at intake.
What happens if the other side does not respond?
The review proceeds on the records the requesting party can produce. The decision maker treats an unexplained silence as a factor against the silent party, though it does not decide the file on silence alone.