Key takeaways
– Privacy coins are one step within a broader laundering pipeline, acting as a temporary black box to disrupt traceability.
– Hackers move funds through consolidation, obfuscation and chain hopping and typically add privacy layers before attempting to cash out.
– Privacy coins are most useful immediately after a hack because they reduce onchain visibility, delay blacklisting and help break attribution links.
– Enforcement actions against mixers and other laundering tools often push illicit flows toward alternative routes, including privacy coins.
After crypto hacks, stolen funds are frequently routed through privacy-focused cryptocurrencies. That has created a perception that criminals prefer privacy coins, but in practice these assets function as a specialized “black box” inside a larger laundering process. To understand why privacy coins appear post-hack, it helps to follow how laundering typically unfolds.
How funds flow after a hack
Following a breach, attackers rarely send assets directly to exchanges. Instead they follow staged steps to obscure origin and slow investigations:
1. Consolidation: Funds from many victim addresses are moved into fewer wallets.
2. Obfuscation: Assets are shuffled through chains of intermediary wallets and services, including mixers.
3. Chain-hopping: Funds are bridged or swapped across blockchains to break continuity on any single ledger.
4. Privacy layer: A portion is converted into privacy-focused coins or routed through privacy-preserving protocols.
5. Cash-out: Assets are exchanged for liquid cryptocurrencies or fiat via centralized exchanges, OTC desks or P2P channels.
Privacy coins most commonly appear at stages four or five, adding an extra layer of opacity after earlier steps have already complicated the onchain trail.
Why privacy coins are attractive immediately after a hack
Reduced onchain visibility
Privacy-focused systems hide sender, receiver and amount details that transparent blockchains publish. Once funds enter those networks, standard analytics lose much of their effectiveness. That sudden drop in visibility is especially valuable in the days after a theft when monitoring and blacklisting efforts are most intense.
Breaking attribution chains
Attackers rarely move straight from stolen assets into privacy coins. They typically use swaps, bridges and intermediary wallets first, then introduce a privacy layer. This multi-step approach creates a strategic firebreak that makes it harder to connect the final output to the original hack.
Negotiating power in OTC and P2P markets
Informal OTC brokers and P2P traders operate with lighter compliance than major exchanges. Using privacy-enhanced assets reduces counterparty visibility into fund origin, simplifying negotiations and lowering perceived risk of freezes, which can improve the attacker’s leverage in less regulated markets.
Mixer squeeze and evolving laundering methods
Enforcement targeting mixers, bridges or high-risk exchanges displaces illicit flows. When a route becomes risky, criminals shift to alternatives, increasing volume on those channels. Privacy coins benefit from this dynamic because they offer protocol-level obfuscation without relying on third-party services.
Limitations of privacy coins as a laundering tool
Despite privacy features, large-scale hacks still heavily involve BTC, ETH and stablecoins at later stages because liquidity and exit options matter. Privacy coins often have:
– Lower trading volumes
– Fewer listings on major centralized exchanges
– Heightened regulatory scrutiny
These constraints make it hard to convert large sums to fiat without drawing attention. As a result, attackers tend to use privacy coins briefly before returning to more liquid assets for final withdrawal. Effective laundering typically combines privacy tools with high-liquidity assets tailored to each phase.
Behavioral trends in asset laundering
Analysts identify several recurring red flags in illicit flows:
– Layering and consolidation: Rapid dispersal across many wallets followed by strategic reaggregation for exit.
– Chain hopping: Moving across multiple blockchains to fragment onchain continuity.
– Strategic latency: Leaving funds dormant to bypass windows of intense scrutiny.
– Direct-to-fiat workarounds: Using OTC brokers to avoid exchange monitoring.
– Hybrid privacy: Employing privacy coins as one tool within a broader laundering strategy, not as a total replacement for mainstream assets.
Contours of anonymity: why traceability persists
Privacy-preserving technologies raise investigation costs but do not make tracing impossible. Wins usually come from targeting ecosystem edges:
– Regulated gateways: Exchanges and services that require identity checks provide reliable signals.
– Human networks: Investigations into money-mule syndicates and OTC operators reveal real-world links.
– Off-chain intelligence: Traditional surveillance, confidential informants and Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) help connect onchain activity to persons.
– Operational friction: Mistakes by perpetrators—reusing addresses, revealing metadata or making identifiable offchain payments—create traces.
Blockchain analytics firms therefore often focus less on the privacy coin internals and more on how funds enter and leave those systems, since boundary points are where investigators can most effectively observe flows.
Legitimate uses for privacy-enhancing technologies
It’s important to separate technology from misuse. Privacy-focused tools serve valid purposes, including:
– Protecting confidentiality of commercial transactions and trade secrets.
– Shielding individuals in hostile jurisdictions from surveillance or political persecution.
– Reducing theft risk by limiting public visibility of personal wealth.
Regulatory scrutiny tends to target illicit uses—ransomware payments, stolen funds, sanctions evasion, darknet markets—rather than privacy features per se. Broad bans risk curtailing lawful financial privacy for individuals and businesses while criminal actors migrate to other methods.
Balancing act for regulators and exchanges
Recurring links between privacy coins and post-hack flows intensify the need for exchanges to:
– Improve transaction monitoring and risk assessments.
– Limit exposure to high-risk inflows.
– Strengthen compliance with cross-border Travel Rule obligations and jurisdictional standards.
For policymakers, the challenge is that criminals adapt faster than static regulations. Crackdowns on one tool often displace activity to others, making money laundering a dynamic problem that requires adaptable, targeted interventions rather than sweeping prohibitions.
Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.
