GSIG was constituted to address a structural gap in the compliance industry: the absence of a forensic intelligence firm with the independence, depth, and infrastructure to serve sovereign authorities, supervisory bodies, and counsel handling material engagements.
The published sanctions lists are the floor. The work begins above them. The pages that follow set out why the firm exists, how it is constructed, and what it refuses to do.
The compliance industry has, with few exceptions, organised itself around volume. The threat picture demands depth. A firm of this kind needs to exist.
The published sanctions lists are extraordinarily thin. The threat networks that operate around them are not. The compliance industry that grew up around the published lists has, with few exceptions, organised itself around volume — large vendors selling list-mirroring at scale, optimised for the median customer.
That arrangement no longer matches the threat picture. The institutions that need depth — sovereign authorities, supervisory bodies, counsel handling material engagements, payment networks with structural exposure — increasingly cannot procure depth through the volume vendors. They need a firm built differently, on different infrastructure, under different commercial incentives.
GSIG is that firm.
The structural arrangement is the credentialing. Privately owned, privately funded, owned infrastructure, no commercial relationships with the firms we analyse.
GSIG is privately owned and privately funded. We have taken no outside capital, hold no commercial relationships with the firms we analyse, and operate forensic infrastructure built and owned in-house — not on commercial cloud, not under data-sharing arrangements with screened counterparties.
Engagements are conducted under engagement letter and confidentiality agreement. The composition of each engagement team is scoped to the work, with engagement leads, forensic analysts, and counsel-of-record introduced to clients on the same vetted basis as every other element of the engagement.
This arrangement is deliberate. The independence of the firm is the product.
Not values in the corporate sense. These are the operating beliefs that distinguish GSIG from a list-mirroring vendor. Each one declarative, defensible, and testable against the work the firm does.
The shift from list-based sanctions screening to topology-level forensic intelligence is happening now. The regulatory frameworks that will codify it — MiCA, the GENIUS Act, FATF travel rule, MiCAR transposition — are being written in real time. The institutions building exposure to the tokenised economy are doing so faster than the supervisory frameworks can describe.
GSIG is positioned at the intersection of the three. Forensic-grade attribution infrastructure ready for the supervisory standard the next examination cycle will define. An editorial voice in the public conversation through the Briefings programme. Direct engagement with the sovereign authorities setting the framework.
The firm is months old. The problem it addresses is decades old, accelerating, and underserved. Both facts matter.
Forensic-grade attribution at the topology level. Multi-chain, multi-jurisdiction, continuously updated, owned in-house and operated under engagement letter.
The Briefings programme publishes structural analysis to the public record. The firm's editorial voice is part of the credentialing.
Direct engagement with supervisory bodies and sovereign authorities setting the next-cycle frameworks. Submissions, technical assistance, on-site.
GSIG works to defined parameters and specific deliverables, scoped under engagement letter and confidentiality agreement, with NDAs and privilege protections in place from the outset.
Engagements are conducted on the client's terms. For sovereign authorities, governments, and sovereign wealth funds, on-site. We fly to you.
Most engagements begin with a confidential conversation about scope. No marketing material, no sales process, no demo cycle. The first call is the work.