Under the imperative of 'prevention', the process of information production for investigatory purposes forms a crossover between intelligence gathering and law enforcement. Digital surveillance programmes collect personal data prior to any probable cause of suspicion, whereas law enforcement activities are concerned with collecting evidence of crimes after the event. When future looking preventative approaches to the prosecution of crimes are forced into the linear, temporal narrative by which criminal investigations unfold, a tension emerges. The article demonstrates the ultimate incompatibility between 'out of the ordinary' intelligence activities and 'ordinary' criminal investigations by unearthing the procedural character behind evidence laundering.The risk posed by individuals and groups deemed to be a threat to society demand investigatory speed and efficiency in order to interdict the dangers they pose. Dismantling organizations and networks, and detecting crimes ahead of their materialization often requires a multi-level approach. Cooperation and information sharing among different agencies is the cornerstone of intelligence-led policing. What the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) describes as 'investigative intelligence', for example, aims explicitly to collect information on both active and potential targets with the ultimate goal of bringing prosecutions. In the DEA's own words: 'Underpinning this era of intelligence is a new philosophy that states that intelligence drives enforcement'. 1 Through the Special Operations Division (SOD), DEA intelligence analysis supports federal, state and local law enforcement officials in compiling investigative reports. 2 The work of the SOD in collating, analysing and disseminating intelligence derived from multi-agency collection efforts enables criminal cases to be enacted. 3 Armed with legal investigative authority, the SOD is able to build and pursue leads. 'Packed intelligence' derived from the surveillance efforts of intelligence agencies, such as the National Security Agency (NSA), is then passed on to local field offices for real-time enforcement investigations.It is within the intersection of the 'guilds of professionals' 4 of policing and intelligence that the gathering and sharing of data under the imperative of 'crime prevention' takes place. 5 These professional guilds, such as police forces, intelligence agencies and private contractors, utilize methods that between them extract evidence and turn it into 'actionable data'. 6 Therefore, the efforts of the intelligence community and of law enforcement interconnect at the level of information production leading to prosecutorial cases. The complexity of the interactions among official, public, private and clandestine actors, informed as they are by distinct dynamics and processes, however, makes it exceedingly difficult to map those connections on paper.