Met Police Suspends Oxygen Forensics Software Use Amid Russian Ownership Allegations

Key Points

• The Metropolitan Police has paused its use of Oxygen Forensics digital-forensics software following allegations by US authorities concerning concealed Russian ownership and development.
• The software has reportedly been used by British police forces, including specialist units within Scotland Yard, to recover information from locked mobile devices.
• The Telegraph reported that Oxygen Forensics technology was used during live police investigations and could bypass password protection and encryption on certain devices.
• US prosecutors allege that Oxygen Forensics was secretly owned and controlled by Russian nationals and that its software was developed by a Russia-based team.
• The US Justice Department says the software was also sold in Russia to organisations that reportedly included the Federal Security Service, the Investigative Committee and the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
• Oxygen Forensics chief executive Lee Reiber and Russian national Oleg Sergeyevich Davydov were arrested in September 2026 and charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
• The US criminal complaint does not allege that Oxygen software contained malicious code or that it was used to obtain unauthorised access to customer systems or data.
• The Met says it began its contract with Oxygen Forensics in 2023 and used the tools in fewer than 40 cases over the past year.
• The Metropolitan Police says information obtained during investigations was not shared with Oxygen Forensics.
• The National Police Chiefs’ Council has notified the National Cyber Security Centre and encouraged forces using Oxygen products to conduct proportionate local assessments.
• Alicia Kearns, the shadow security minister, has called for a Home Office investigation and an audit of the software’s use across British policing.
• The allegations have also prompted scrutiny of Oxygen Forensics products used by law-enforcement agencies outside Britain.

Mosco News Daily (MND) October 2, 2026 – The Metropolitan Police has suspended its use of Oxygen Forensics digital-forensics software after US authorities accused the company behind the technology of concealing Russian ownership and development links. The software has been used by British police forces, including specialist units within Scotland Yard, to recover digital information from mobile devices during investigations. The Met says its use of the technology was limited, involving fewer than 40 cases over the past year, and that no investigative data was shared with Oxygen Forensics. The force has now begun a full review while the wider UK policing sector assesses the implications of the US allegations.

Why has the Metropolitan Police suspended Oxygen Forensics software?

The Metropolitan Police’s decision follows allegations made by US authorities against executives of Oxygen Forensics, a Virginia-based digital-forensics company whose products are designed to recover, preserve and analyse information from electronic devices.

The development was first reported in detail in the UK by Richard Holmes, Forensic Investigations Editor at The Telegraph, in a report published on October 1. Holmes reported that British police forces, including specialist units within the Metropolitan Police, had used Oxygen Forensics software to access phones belonging to suspects during live investigations.

The report said the software was capable of working with password-protected mobile devices and other digital equipment, including smartphones and drones.

Following the US allegations, British police forces using the technology were encouraged to assess whether the software presented any operational, security or investigative issues.

The Met subsequently confirmed that it had paused its use of Oxygen Forensics while undertaking a review.

A Met spokesperson told LBC that the force had held a contract with Oxygen Forensics Inc since 2023 and had made limited use of its tools to recover digital forensic information. The force said this represented only a fraction of its wider digital-forensics activity.

The Met also said it believed the impact on ongoing investigations would be extremely limited.

How was Oxygen Forensics software used by British police?

According to reporting by Richard Holmes of The Telegraph, Oxygen Forensics products were used by British law-enforcement organisations to obtain information from digital devices that investigators might otherwise have difficulty accessing.

The technology’s capabilities are significant because modern criminal investigations frequently depend on digital evidence stored on smartphones, computers and other connected devices.

The US Justice Department describes digital-forensics software generally as technology used to recover, preserve and analyse electronic information while keeping original files unchanged.

The technology at issue was designed to extract information from devices, including locked phones. Reports concerning its use in Britain have therefore raised questions about how police forces selected, assessed and monitored technology used to access sensitive evidence.

The Met has stressed that its use was limited.

According to the force, the technology was used fewer than 40 times during the past year. The Met also said that investigations involving Oxygen accounted for only a small part of its overall digital-forensics work.

The force said it did not share data obtained from investigations with Oxygen Forensics.

That distinction is important because the current US allegations concern the company’s ownership, control and development arrangements. The US criminal complaint does not allege that the software itself contained malicious code or that it was used to gain unauthorised access to customer computer systems or data.

What have US prosecutors alleged about Oxygen Forensics?

The United States Department of Justice announced on September 23 that Lee Reiber, 55, and Oleg Sergeyevich Davydov, 52, had been arrested in connection with a federal criminal complaint.

Reiber, the company’s chief executive, was arrested in Idaho. Davydov, a Russian national and company co-founder, was arrested at Heathrow Airport before he was due to travel to Istanbul.

According to the US Justice Department, the two men are charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

Prosecutors allege that Oxygen Forensics represented itself to US government agencies as an independent American company while five Russian nationals, including Davydov, allegedly owned and controlled the business through a Cyprus-based holding company.

The Justice Department further alleges that the software was developed in Russia.

According to the federal complaint, the Russian owners had previously owned a Russian company known as Oxygen Software LLC, later renamed MKO Systems LLC. Davydov co-founded that business in 2000.

US prosecutors allege that developers working in Russia created the software and that the Russian company sold technology under different product names to customers that reportedly included Russia’s Federal Security Service, known as the FSB, as well as the Russian Investigative Committee and Ministry of Internal Affairs.

These allegations have not resulted in a criminal conviction. The Justice Department expressly states that the complaint contains allegations and that defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

What happened to Oxygen Forensics after US sanctions on Russia?

The US Justice Department’s account links the alleged restructuring of Oxygen Forensics to the expansion of American sanctions against Russia following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

According to prosecutors, Davydov, Reiber and other Russian owners agreed after the sanctions were expanded in early 2022 to conceal the company’s actual ownership and the Russian development of its software.

Reiber became chief executive, president and chairman of the board in March 2022. The Russian owners were then removed from public corporate filings, according to the complaint.

However, prosecutors allege that the Russian owners continued to exercise significant control over the company.

The Justice Department says they continued to make important decisions, controlled certain banking arrangements and influenced Reiber’s compensation.

The complaint also alleges that Reiber subsequently provided US authorities with certifications concerning the company’s ownership and the location of its software development.

In July 2024, prosecutors say Oxygen Forensics certified to the US Department of War that no foreign person had the power to control the appointment of directors or managers or direct the company’s decisions and activities.

The Justice Department alleges that this certification was inaccurate because the Russian owners continued to exercise control.

Did Oxygen Forensics receive government contracts?

Yes. The US Justice Department says Oxygen Forensics obtained contracts from several US federal agencies.

The agencies identified in the complaint include the US Department of War and three components of the Department of Homeland Security: the Secret Service and its National Computer Forensics Institute, Homeland Security Investigations and the DHS Office of Inspector General.

Prosecutors allege that the company’s representations concerning its ownership and development arrangements were relevant to its ability to obtain those contracts.

The complaint says that, in September 2024, the National Computer Forensics Institute awarded Oxygen Forensics a five-year contract.

The allegations are particularly significant because digital-forensics suppliers can handle technology used to recover highly sensitive information from devices involved in criminal and security investigations.

However, the US authorities have not alleged that Oxygen’s software was malicious or that customer systems or data were accessed without authorisation.

What has the Met said about the data obtained using the software?

The Metropolitan Police has sought to distinguish its use of the technology from the allegations concerning Oxygen Forensics’ ownership.

A Met spokesperson said the force had used Oxygen tools only on a limited basis since entering into the contract in 2023.

The force said it had paused the technology while a full review was conducted and that the anticipated effect on ongoing investigations was extremely limited. It also stated that data obtained from investigations was not shared with Oxygen Forensics.

The statement provides an important limitation to the current allegations.

There is presently no allegation from US prosecutors, based on the criminal complaint, that Oxygen’s software secretly transmitted British police evidence to Russia or that it was used to obtain unauthorised access to Met systems.

The immediate issue for UK policing is therefore also one of supply-chain assurance, software provenance, ownership and the handling of technology used in sensitive investigations.

What has the National Police Chiefs’ Council said?

The National Police Chiefs’ Council has confirmed that it is aware of the allegations made by US authorities.

An NPCC spokesperson said the allegations remained allegations and noted that US authorities had not alleged that the software contained malicious code or that customer data had been accessed without authorisation.

The NPCC and the Forensic Capability Network have reviewed the information currently available and informed relevant partners, including the National Cyber Security Centre and the Forensic Science Regulator.

Police forces using Oxygen products have also been encouraged to conduct proportionate local assessments to understand and contain any issues identified.

The NPCC said it would continue to monitor the US investigation and coordinate the policing response.

This means the issue extends beyond the Metropolitan Police. Other UK forces are understood to have used Oxygen products, making the assessment a wider policing matter.

What has Alicia Kearns said about the software?

Alicia Kearns, the shadow security minister, has called for a broader investigation into the use of Oxygen Forensics products by British police forces.

As reported by LBC, Kearns described the use of the software as “utterly unacceptable” and said pausing its use should be followed by a wider audit. She called for the Home Office to establish what data the software had accessed across police forces.

Her comments represent a political response to the allegations rather than a finding that the software compromised British investigations.

The question of whether any UK police data was exposed remains subject to the assessments being carried out by the relevant authorities.

Were the software allegations about malicious code?

No such allegation has been made by the US Justice Department in the criminal complaint.

This is one of the most important distinctions in the developing story.

The Justice Department specifically stated that the complaint does not allege that the software contained malicious code or that it was used to obtain unauthorised access to a customer’s computer systems or data.

The allegations instead centre on the claimed concealment of Russian ownership, control and software development when Oxygen Forensics was dealing with US government agencies.

Consequently, the existence of Russian ownership allegations should not by itself be treated as evidence that British police investigations were compromised.

The Met’s own review is intended to establish whether there are any issues arising from its use of the technology.

What happened to Oleg Davydov after his arrest at Heathrow?

Davydov was arrested at Heathrow Airport on September 20, according to the US Justice Department, which said the United States expected to seek his extradition.

The Times subsequently reported that Davydov appeared before Westminster Magistrates’ Court in connection with the extradition process. The newspaper said his bail position was considered in the context of the US request and the available information before the court.

The extradition proceedings are separate from the Metropolitan Police’s review of Oxygen Forensics.

Davydov remains entitled to the presumption of innocence in relation to the US criminal allegations.

How widespread is the scrutiny of Oxygen Forensics technology?

The scrutiny is not confined to the United Kingdom.

The Register reported that police and government organisations in other European countries were also reviewing their use of Oxygen products following the US allegations. It reported that Romanian authorities had begun terminating their use of the products and that Latvia’s State Police had suspended the software pending assessment.

The wider response reflects the international use of digital-forensics technology and the difficulty of separating software supply chains from the ownership and development structures behind them.

Oxygen Forensics had marketed its products internationally, and earlier company material cited law-enforcement customers in Britain and Europe.

The current reviews therefore involve not only the technical performance of the software but also questions surrounding corporate ownership, development locations and supplier due diligence.

What does the Oxygen Forensics case mean for digital evidence in UK policing?

The immediate consequence is an examination of whether evidence obtained through the technology requires any additional assessment.

Police forces rely on digital evidence in investigations ranging from conventional criminal cases to complex organised-crime, terrorism and cyber investigations.

When a tool is used to recover information from a locked device, investigators must be able to demonstrate that the evidence has been obtained and preserved through reliable procedures.

The current allegations do not establish that evidence recovered by Oxygen software is invalid.

Instead, they have prompted forces to examine the circumstances under which the software was procured and used and whether additional technical or forensic checks are required.

The Met’s statement that Oxygen was used in fewer than 40 cases during the previous year provides some indication of the scale of its direct use by the force, although the significance of individual cases can vary considerably.

What is the background to the Oxygen Forensics development?

Oxygen Forensics is a digital-forensics company based in Alexandria, Virginia, whose technology is designed to recover and analyse information from electronic devices.

According to the US Justice Department, Davydov helped establish Oxygen Forensics in Virginia in 2013 after co-founding the Russian Oxygen Software business in 2000. Lee Reiber joined Oxygen Forensics in 2015.

The federal investigation centres on what prosecutors allege happened after US sanctions against Russia expanded in 2022.

The Justice Department alleges that the company’s Russian owners were removed from public filings while retaining significant control and that the software continued to be developed by a team in Russia.

US prosecutors also allege that software associated with the Russian operation was supplied to Russian state organisations, including the FSB.

The case was brought to public attention after the arrests of Reiber and Davydov in September.

The Justice Department says the maximum statutory penalty for the wire-fraud conspiracy charge is 20 years’ imprisonment if the defendants are convicted. It has also said that federal authorities seized corporate bank accounts, approximately 57 domains and other cyber infrastructure under a separate court-authorised proceeding.

Those allegations remain matters for the US judicial process.

How could the development affect UK police and digital-forensics investigations?

The immediate effect is likely to be greater scrutiny of the technology used to obtain digital evidence, particularly where suppliers operate internationally or have complex ownership structures.

For UK police forces, the issue could lead to additional assessments of Oxygen products, reviews of previous use and closer examination of how digital-forensics suppliers are vetted.

The NPCC has already encouraged forces using Oxygen products to conduct local assessments, while the Met has paused its own use pending review.

For investigators, the practical issue will be determining whether any cases require additional examination rather than assuming that all evidence obtained through the software is affected.

For prosecutors and courts, the relevant consideration in individual cases would remain the integrity, provenance and admissibility of the evidence concerned.

For police technology procurement, the episode also places attention on corporate ownership, development locations, sanctions compliance and software supply-chain assurance.

At present, there is no public finding that Oxygen Forensics compromised Met systems or unlawfully transferred Met investigative data. The Met has stated that it did not share data obtained from investigations with the company, while US prosecutors have explicitly said their complaint does not allege malicious code or unauthorised access to customer data.