Custody and control review: stages and deadlines
Custody and control review checks who actually holds a tokenised right and whether that control can be proven before a dispute, a sale or an insolvency filing. The process runs in five stages, from opening a file to a documented finding. Total duration depends on how many custody records exist and how fast the counterparty responds.
What changes once the review opens
Opening a custody and control review changes how the client should treat the asset in question. Any transfer made after the file opens becomes part of the evidentiary record, whether it helps the client's position or not. For that reason, the first working instruction to the client is usually to stop discretionary movement of the tokenised right until the chain of control is mapped.
The review also sets a practical clock running. Once a request for confirmation goes to a custodian, exchange or wallet provider, the file tracks the date it was sent and the date, if any, a reply arrives. That gap becomes part of the finding, regardless of whether the review ultimately closes clean or closes with an unresolved item.
Some tokenised rights arise from an offer that reached buyers in several countries at once. Where that applies, the review also has to establish which issuance record governs the split; the page The offer targets several countries token issuance who decides sets out how that question is resolved before custody questions are even reached.
Steps to run before you approach the other side
The steps below assume the client already suspects a gap in control, rather than running a routine check with no live concern.
- Collect wallet and ledger extracts. The client's finance or operations team pulls transaction history covering the whole disputed period, not only the most recent entries.
- Map the custody chain. Outside counsel lists every custodian, exchange or wallet provider that held the asset at any point, in order.
- Freeze internal changes. The client's own operations team stops any transfer that could alter the record before the review closes.
- Send a written request to the current custodian. Counsel asks the custodian to confirm, in writing, who currently controls the asset.
- Fix a response window and record the send date. Counsel sets a deadline in the request itself and logs the day it went out.
- Mark the point of no return. The file records the last moment at which a transfer could still be reversed without a third party's consent. After that point, the review treats the position as fixed.
Who decides, and by when
No single body owns this process end to end. Different actors decide different stages, and the timing at each stage is set by agreement rather than by a fixed rule.
| Stage | Who acts | Typical timing |
|---|---|---|
| Opening the file | Client's legal or compliance lead | Same working day as the concern is raised |
| Mapping the custody chain | Outside counsel | A few business days, depending on how many hand-offs occurred |
| Request to the custodian | Counsel, addressed to the custodian's compliance desk | Response window set in the request itself |
| Escalation if there is no reply | Counsel, follow-up notice | A short further window before the gap is logged as unresolved |
| Closing the review | Client, on counsel's confirmation | Once control is confirmed or the gap is documented |
Where the asset moved through more than one custodian, each hand-off needs its own confirmation. The review does not close on a single reply covering the whole chain.
Forks in the process
If the current custodian confirms control in writing, the file closes with a clean provenance record and no further step is needed on this point.
If the custodian does not respond within the agreed window, counsel sends a follow-up and, absent a reply, logs the gap as unresolved rather than assuming control by default.
If control passed through several custodians before reaching the current one, the review needs a confirmation at each hand-off, not only at the endpoint. A single missing link anywhere in the chain keeps the file open.
What this review does not settle
Custody and control review answers one question: who holds the asset now, and can that be shown. It does not decide who owns the underlying right, and it does not value the asset.
Where the tokenised right sits inside a portfolio under negotiation, ownership and valuation questions sit closer to due diligence than to custody review; the Asset report before a portfolio is bought covers that ground from the buyer's side.
Where the concern is not the asset itself but the counterparty's solvency, custody confirmation alone will not tell the client whether the counterparty can meet its obligations; the Debtor report when insolvency signals appear addresses that separately.
Clients who are not yet sure which check they need can start with the Free check overview before committing to a full custody review.
Related reading
Tokenised rights sometimes move between chains or protocols rather than between custodians. That process runs on a different timeline; How fork and migration handling tokenised rights runs in stages and deadlines covers it in full.
Verified
This overview reflects how custody and control review is run as an internal file process; it does not draw on a single statutory deadline, because none applies uniformly across custodians. Sources for the file itself are custody agreements, prior transfer confirmations, wallet and ledger extracts, and written correspondence with the custodian. Last checked: March 2025.
FAQ
How long does custody and control review take in practice?
Timing depends on how many custodians held the asset and how fast each one replies. A single custodian with a prompt reply can close in days; a chain with several hand-offs and slow responses takes longer, and the file records each delay as it happens.
Which documents are needed to start?
Wallet or ledger extracts covering the full disputed period, any custody agreements, prior transfer confirmations, and proof of the client's own authority to request confirmation from the custodian.
What happens if the other side does not respond?
Counsel sends a follow-up within the agreed window. If there is still no reply, the file logs the gap as unresolved rather than treating silence as confirmation, and the client is told what evidence is missing before any next step is taken.