Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Atomic Wallet against the sources the page cites. Only the most recent review is shown.
These findings are produced by an automated reviewer, and its results vary between runs: the same page, checked three times on the same day, came back with 15%, 20% and 34% of its claims disputed, mostly because each run extracted a different number of claims. Treat what follows as leads, not rulings.
“Disputed” means the reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. It does not mean the claim is false. “Unverifiable” means no reachable source settled it either way.
Nothing here changes the page on its own. A proposed correction is applied only after a human moderator approves it; until then the page reads as it did when reviewed.
unverifiable
1 claimNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #6[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Class Action: Meany v. Atomic Wallet (Dismissed 2024)
“An amended complaint filed around August 2023 added more named plaintiffs and named Evercode Infinite, the Estonian software firm behind the wallet, and its co-founder Ilia Brusov as additional defendants.”
reviewerAmended complaint around August 2023 added Evercode Infinite and Ilia BrusovThe Bloomberg Law source is paywalled and I did not fetch it. Cointelegraph confirms Evercode and Brusov were defendants, but not the amendment date.
confirmed
5 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: June 2023 Hack (~$100 Million)
“Elliptic attributed the theft to North Korea's Lazarus Group and reported that the stolen funds were later laundered in part through the Russia-based exchange Garantex, which the U.S. Treasury had sanctioned in 2022.”
reviewerElliptic tracked over 5,000 compromised wallets, >$100M, 10 addresses over $1M, 164 over $100k, Lazarus attribution, Garantex launderingElliptic confirms the figures and attribution. Note Elliptic says funds moved to Garantex after a freeze, consistent with the page. - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: June 2023 Hack (~$100 Million)
“The company said publicly that "less than 0.1%" of its roughly 5 million users were affected”
reviewerAtomic Wallet said less than 0.1% of ~5 million users were affectedSupported by Decrypt. The company's earlier statement was 'less than 1%' per Elliptic, a minor nuance.citeddecrypt.co/145765 - #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Prior Security Warnings (Least Authority, 2021-2022)
“According to CoinDesk, this was the first time since Least Authority's founding in 2011 that it had publicly flagged unresolved issues in a client's product.”
reviewerLeast Authority audit early 2021, April delivery, February 2022 warning after ten months, first time since 2011, Gladych Q2 2022All the Least Authority claims match CoinDesk. The page omits Gladych's counter-claim that the issues pose no user risk because the wallet is non-custodial, though the company background section touches on this. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Class Action: Meany v. Atomic Wallet (Dismissed 2024)
“the dismissal of those defendants was without leave to amend”
reviewerJudge Brimmer dismissed claims on Sept 10, 2024 for lack of personal jurisdiction, without leave to amend; 21 additional days for BrusovDate, judge, jurisdictional basis and no leave to amend are supported across two sources. Cointelegraph names the CEO 'Gladyshev' and the shareholder as Pavel Sokolov, which the page does not use. - #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Malaysia Regulatory Warning (2024)
“Malaysia's Securities Commission flagged Atomic Wallet on its list of entities believed to be operating a digital asset exchange without the required registration in the country”
reviewerMalaysia's Securities Commission flagged Atomic Wallet for operating a DAX without registration (Dec 2024)Matches the cited article and the 2024-12 timeline date.