Screen any TRON or EVM address for sanctions exposure, mixer contact and proximity to stolen funds — before you accept a single dollar.
Most scoring collapses into one number because contact is treated as guilt. Proximity to dirty money is not the same as receiving it, and the difference is the whole product.
Is this address itself listed?
DecisiveOFAC SDN and equivalent sanctions programmes, published hack and exploit addresses, and our own confirmed-fraud set. A hit here is binary and needs no interpretation.
Where did the value come from?
Heaviest single inputThe inbound graph is walked to five hops and weighted by value at every step. A dollar arriving straight from a mixer and a dollar that touched an exchange three hops back are not the same finding, and are not scored as if they were.
Does the wallet act like a wallet?
ModifierPeel chains, dispersal fans, dusting, circular transfers, a fresh address receiving six figures, and — on TRON specifically — energy rented from pools that serve automated dispersal.
Who is on the other side?
ContextCounterparties are resolved to categories — exchange, bridge, DeFi, gambling, mixer, darknet — so the report names entities rather than reciting hashes at you.
Eleven hops is far enough that the wallet paying you looks ordinary. It is not far enough for the money to stop being what it is — which is why the trace runs to depth instead of stopping at the first clean-looking address.
Severe · traced to originEight networks, one verdict. Every chain is indexed to the same depth, so a five-hop trace does not quietly become a two-hop trace because the funds crossed a bridge.
More USDT settles on TRON than on any other chain, and the fraud follows it. So TRON is traced at the token layer — TRC-20 Transfer events rather than native TRX — with resource delegation and energy-rental patterns read as their own signal.
Full internal-transaction traces, not just top-level transfers
Token and native flows, BEP-20 approvals and drainer signatures
PoS bridge deposits reconciled against their Ethereum leg
L2 traces plus canonical bridge entries and exits
L2 traces plus canonical bridge entries and exits
L2 traces plus canonical bridge entries and exits
C-Chain traces plus bridge and subnet transfer history
Every score opens into the evidence behind it — which counterparty, how many hops away, how much value, and on what date. If we cannot show you the path, we do not raise the flag.
A direct sanctions designation is decisive on its own — it needs no weighting and admits no interpretation.
Sanctions screening: live OFAC data
Exposure & signals: sample figures pending indexer
We did not invent the case for screening wallets. These are the published findings this product is built on — read them at the source, not through our summary of them.
of illicit transaction volume now settles in stablecoins
The reason this tool screens at the token layer rather than the native one. Watching TRX or ETH transfers alone would miss the overwhelming majority of what actually moves.
received by illicit addresses in 2025, up 162% year on year
Growth driven largely by sanctioned entities — which is why a direct OFAC match is treated as decisive here instead of being averaged into a composite score.
of surveyed jurisdictions have now legislated the Travel Rule
Up from 73% a year earlier. Screening expectations are moving past exchange on-ramps toward peer-to-peer transfers between personal wallets — the exact transaction this tool is built for.
on TRON, identified as a settlement rail for cross-border illicit flows
Independent corroboration of why TRON gets a dedicated tracing path here rather than being treated as one EVM chain among several.
Linked for reference. ARGUS is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or a partner of any organisation listed above, and each figure belongs to its publisher.
Someone about to accept a single payment should not need a subscription to find out it came from a mixer. Depth and volume are what cost money.
A score is a human decision expressed as a number. These are the people who decide what counts as evidence and how loudly it is allowed to speak.
Builds the tracing engine. Spent the previous six years on exchange infrastructure, most of it reconciling deposits that were not what they claimed to be.
Owns attribution — deciding what a cluster is, and how confident that answer is allowed to sound. Background in graph databases and entity resolution.
Traces TRON and EVM flows by hand before they become heuristics. Argues that most false positives come from treating proximity as evidence.
Translates between sanctions regimes and code. Responsible for the sentence that says a score is an assessment, not an accusation.
No, and we will not phrase it that way. A score describes the observable history of funds that reached an address on a public ledger. It says nothing about who controls that address or what they knew. Plenty of high-scoring wallets belong to people who were paid by someone dishonest.
Because value dilutes. A wallet that received a direct withdrawal from a mixer and a wallet nine hops downstream of one are different situations, and scoring them identically produces so many false positives that the tool stops being usable. Exposure is weighted by how much value actually travelled the path, and it decays with distance.
Because the risk on TRON is almost never in native TRX — it is in USDT TRC-20. Screening the native transfers would miss the transactions that matter, so TRON is traced at the token layer. Energy delegation and resource rental are also read as signals, since automated dispersal tends to lease energy from the same pools.
Anonymous checks are not tied to an identity, and reports expire. Addresses themselves are public ledger data — we cache what we have already traced so a repeat query is fast, and that cache holds no information about who asked.
Nothing on this site is legal advice, and this is the point where you want someone who is qualified to give it. What we can give you is the evidence: the path, the hop count, the value, and the dates, in a form you can hand to an exchange or a lawyer.
Not on its own. ARGUS is a screening tool and an input into your process, not a compliance programme and not a licensed provider. If you are legally obliged to screen counterparties, treat this as evidence-gathering that sits inside a programme you own.
One address, one verdict, no account required for the first check of the day.