Linked wallets
Which accounts are actually one participant?
In plain English
These accounts move as if they belong to one participant. On its own that is not wrongdoing, but it changes how their combined activity should be read, and it feeds the other checks.
What the record supports
- Funding relationships: accounts capitalised from a common source.
- Timing: accounts that act together far more often than chance allows.
- Trading graph structure: who repeatedly transacts with whom.
What the record does not support
- Who the participant is. We group behaviour, we do not identify people.
- Whether the grouping is one person, one firm, or one piece of software operated by several.
- Shared infrastructure that links accounts without linking their owners. A liquidity hub or a custody service connects everyone who touches it, and treating that as a group manufactures findings rather than discovering them, so hubs are excluded by design.
Obligation
Why it matters.
Almost every other indicator changes meaning once accounts are grouped. Activity that is unremarkable across nine accounts can be concentration, structuring, or self-trading once those nine are read as one participant. Identifying linked accounts is also a standard expectation of customer due diligence.
We describe what was detected and which duty it engages. Whether any obligation has been breached is a judgement for the operator's compliance and legal function, not for an instrument.
See the rest of the set.
Twelve indicators across three obligation families, each with its coverage stated as plainly as its capability.