Cross-Chain Bridging Service

• Moves illicit funds between different blockchains, complicating single-chain investigative efforts.
• When combined with mixing, bridging extends layering across multiple chains, further frustrating law enforcement tracing.

• Criminals exploit bridging solutions to move assets between distinct blockchains, increasing transaction complexity and reducing traceability.
• Repeated bridging swaps, often using newly created addresses, obscure the fund flow and hinder investigators’ ability to link original and destination addresses.

• Facilitates transitioning assets across different blockchains, enabling criminals to sever the direct link between the original chain and newly re-minted tokens.
• Minimal-KYC or unregulated bridging channels obscure provenance, breaking transaction continuity.
• This method adds complexity to forensic tracing by scattering transactional evidence across multiple networks.

• Criminals exploit lock-and-mint bridging to create new tokens on one chain in exchange for locked tokens on another, breaking direct transactional links and obscuring origin.
• The decentralized nature of bridging often bypasses conventional KYC measures, enabling illicit funds to move freely across multiple blockchain networks without a clear paper trail.
• Large collateral pools held by bridges can facilitate high-value laundering, allowing criminals to embed large sums in ostensibly legitimate liquidity flows.
• Integrating bridging with minimal-KYC wallets or other decentralized platforms further complicates investigations, impeding authorities’ ability to trace transactions across disparate chains.

• Criminals utilize cross-chain bridges to pivot assets quickly between different blockchain ecosystems, evading blockchain analytics tied to any single chain.
• These rapid ‘chain hops’ complicate investigators’ efforts to track transactional flows, making it harder to freeze or recover illicit proceeds.
• Bridging often circumvents standard compliance measures if each chain or bridging gateway imposes inconsistent or weak KYC/AML controls.

• Facilitates ‘chain-hopping’ by moving funds from transparent blockchains into privacy-focused wallets or networks, layering illicit proceeds and fragmenting the transaction trail.
• Repeated bridging creates multiple, complex transfers that hamper law enforcement efforts to link transactions back to their origin.

• Facilitates “chain-hopping” by transferring digital assets across different blockchain networks.
• This approach disrupts investigators’ ability to follow the money as it moves away from the initial ransom wallet, impeding effective tracing.

• Criminals leverage cross-chain bridging to move NFTs and related funds across different blockchain networks, creating complex transaction trails.
• This technique, often referred to as 'chain-hopping,' fragments the audit trail and makes it more difficult for investigators to trace proceeds of crime.
• By transferring assets through multiple networks, criminals further layer transactions, obscuring illicit fund flows behind the technical complexity of bridging.

• Criminals exploit blockchain interoperability by moving tokens across different chain networks, breaking a single traceable path.
• This separation of transaction histories conceals fund origins and disrupts AML monitoring.

• Criminals transfer tokens among multiple blockchain networks, breaking transaction continuity and obscuring fund flows.
• Repeated bridging confuses investigators by scattering transaction records across different chains, reducing traceability.

• Allows criminals to hop between different blockchain networks, dispersing illicit payment token flows.
• Obscures transaction histories by splitting transactions across multiple chains, undermining traditional AML tracking methods.

• Criminals lock or deposit their illicit tokens on one blockchain, mint wrapped equivalents on another chain, and thereby sever the direct on-chain link to the original funds.
• By operating in a largely non-custodial or minimally regulated environment, these bridging services lack robust KYC measures, making it difficult for investigators to trace the origin of assets and identify beneficial owners.
• Repeated bridging across multiple networks further fragments the transaction trail, increasing complexity for AML monitoring tools and obscuring the ultimate fund destination.

• Adversaries transfer governance tokens across multiple blockchains, breaking on-chain address continuity.
• Frequent bridging transactions obscure transactional pathways, multiplying compliance and monitoring challenges.

• Allows criminals to transfer illicit proceeds across multiple blockchains, complicating detection by fragmenting transaction histories.
• Exploits rapid chain-hopping to dissociate funds from their original source, hindering effective investigative tracing.

• Criminals use bridging services to transfer utility tokens and related assets across multiple blockchain networks, complicating transaction monitoring.
• By rapidly moving tokens among several chains, they generate overlapping transaction records, creating further layers and hindering forensic tracing.

• Allows seamless transfer of digital assets between different blockchains, helping criminals obfuscate the originating chain of illicit funds.
• The resulting cross-asset “chain hopping” impedes standardized analytics tools, hindering effective tracing of transactions.

• Transfer illicit proceeds across different blockchain networks, creating complex transaction trails that mask their true origin.
• Exploit interoperability to repeatedly switch between tokens on multiple chains, frustrating AML monitoring.

• Facilitates shifting digital assets across different blockchains, breaking transaction trails.
• Criminals exploit limited or no AML checks on bridging services to add layering complexity in P2P crypto laundering.

• Offenders transfer stolen crypto assets across multiple blockchain networks, fragmenting the funds’ transaction history.
• By bridging between chains, they reduce the effectiveness of traditional tracing methods and AML analytics.
• This rapid, cross-chain layering obfuscates the origin of illicit rug-pull proceeds.

Bridging wrapped tokens across chains obscures fund flow and exploits uneven AML standards between ecosystems.