Press enter or click to view image in full size

7 min readJust now

–

The decentralization of financial systems has introduced a complex layer to forensic accounting. While the immutable ledger of a single blockchain offers transparency, the proliferation of cross-chain bridges, decentralized exchanges (DEXs), and atomic swaps has created a fragmented ecosystem often exploited for illicit obfuscation. This article examines the state-of-the-art methodologies for tracing cryptocurrency transactions across disparate blockchains, detailing specific heuristics, tools, and forensic workflows suitable for researchers and investigators.

Introduction

In the nascent stages of blockchain forensics, investigation was primarily a linear process restricted to the Bitcoin network. However, the modern forensic landscape is characterized by “chain-hopping” — a technique where actors rapidly move funds between blockchains (e.g., Bitcoin to Ethereum to Solana) to sever the transactional audit trail.

Effective cross-chain tracing requires moving beyond simple address analysis to a holistic view of the ecosystem. It necessitates an understanding of interoperability protocols and the application of statistical correlation to link events across independent ledgers.

The Mechanics of Cross-Chain Obfuscation

To trace funds effectively, one must first understand the mechanisms of movement. The two primary methods for cross-chain transfer are Bridges and Swaps.

1. Cross-Chain Bridges (Lock-and-Mint)

Most bridges do not physically move a token from Chain A to Chain B. Instead, they utilize a “Lock-and-Mint” mechanism:

• Source Chain: Assets are sent to a bridge contract and “locked” (taken out of circulation).
• Destination Chain: The bridge protocol verifies the lock event and “mints” a wrapped representation of the asset (e.g., Wrapped Bitcoin or wBTC on Ethereum) to the user’s address.

Tracing Vector: The investigation focuses on identifying the deposit transaction on the source chain and correlating it with a mathematically equivalent mint transaction on the destination chain within a specific time window.

2. Atomic Swaps

Atomic swaps allow for peer-to-peer exchange across blockchains without a trusted third party, often utilizing Hashed Timelock Contracts (HTLCs).

Tracing Vector: Since there is no centralized bridge record, investigators must look for HTLC scripts on both chains that share the same hash preimage. If the secret (preimage) is revealed on one chain to claim funds, it becomes visible on the ledger, allowing an observer to link the two swaps.

Core Methodologies and Techniques

The following techniques constitute the standard framework for cross-chain analysis.

A. Heuristic Clustering

Before attempting to bridge chains, investigators must cluster addresses on the source chain to identify the entity.

• Common Input Ownership: If multiple inputs are used in a single transaction, they are assumed to belong to the same entity.
• Change Address Detection: Heuristics identify which output in a transaction is likely the “change” returning to the sender, allowing the trail to continue.

B. Time-Volume Correlation

When funds move across chains (especially through non-transparent mixers or exchanges), cryptographic links may be broken. Investigators then rely on statistical correlation:

• Temporal Proximity: Analyzing the time delay between a withdrawal on Chain A and a deposit on Chain B.
• Volume Matching: identifying amounts that match across chains, adjusted for exchange fees and price fluctuations. For example, a withdrawal of 10.5 BTC followed shortly by a deposit of 10.48 wrapped BTC (minus fees) on Ethereum suggests a link.

C. Bridge Monitoring

This involves monitoring the specific smart contract addresses of known bridges (e.g., Portal, Hop, Stargate). By parsing the event logs of these contracts, investigators can map the sender address on the source chain to the recipient address specified in the bridge payload.

The Investigator’s Toolkit

The following table categorizes the primary platforms used for forensic analysis, ranging from enterprise-grade intelligence to open-source utilities.

Operational Guide: A Cross-Chain Tracing Workflow

This step-by-step guide outlines a standard procedure for tracing a target across multiple blockchains.

Phase 1: In-Depth Profiling (Source Chain)

1. Identify the Anchor Point: Isolate the starting transaction hash or wallet address (e.g., the theft victim or illicit shop).
2. Cluster the Wallet: Use Common Input heuristics to determine if the address is part of a larger wallet cluster.
3. Trace to the Exit: Follow the flow of funds until they interact with a VASP (Virtual Asset Service Provider) or a Bridge Contract.

Phase 2: Bridge Identification

1. Analyze the Contract: If funds are sent to a contract, verify its identity using a block explorer (e.g., Etherscan labels). Look for tags like “Bridge,” “Router,” or “Gateway.”
2. Extract Event Logs: Look at the “Logs” tab of the transaction. You are looking for events such as Deposit, LogLock, or Swap.
3. Locate Destination Metadata: The log data often contains the destination chain ID and the destination address (sometimes encoded in Hexadecimal).

Phase 3: The Cross-Chain Jump

1. Decode the Hex: If the destination address is in Hex format within the logs, decode it to reveal the receiving wallet address.
2. Switch Explorers: Navigate to the block explorer of the destination chain (e.g., switch from Etherscan to Solscan).
3. Search the Destination Address: specific to the timeframe immediately following the source transaction. Look for a “Mint” or “Claim” transaction.

Phase 4: Attribution and De-anonymization

1. Behavioral Analysis: Once the funds are on the new chain, observe if they are consolidated or split.
2. Exchange Interaction: The ultimate goal is usually identifying a deposit to a Centralized Exchange (CEX) with KYC (Know Your Customer) requirements.
3. Subpoena Request: Law enforcement can use the CEX deposit hash to request user details from the exchange.

To illustrate the methodologies discussed previously, we will examine the 2022 Harmony Horizon Bridge Exploit. This incident is widely regarded by forensic analysts as a textbook example of “chain-hopping” and subsequent obfuscation by advanced persistent threats (specifically, the Lazarus Group).

This case study demonstrates the application of Bridge Monitoring, Time-Volume Correlation, and Heuristic Clustering.

Case Study: The Harmony Horizon Bridge Exploit (June 2022)

**Overview: **On June 23, 2022, the Horizon Bridge — a cross-chain interoperability protocol connecting the Harmony blockchain to Ethereum and Binance Smart Chain — was exploited for approximately $100 million. The attackers compromised two of the five private keys governing the bridge’s multi-signature wallet, allowing them to approve unauthorized withdrawals.

The Forensic Challenge: The objective was to trace funds moving from a low-liquidity chain (Harmony) to a high-liquidity chain (Ethereum) and subsequently through privacy protocols.

Phase 1: Source Chain Identification (Harmony Network)

• Event: The attackers initiated transactions on the Harmony network to “unlock” assets.
• Forensic Observation: Analysts observed a series of transactions targeting the bridge contract. Unlike typical user behavior, which usually involves small, irregular amounts, these transactions drained specific assets (e.g., BUSD, USDC, WETH) in their entirety.
• Technique Used: Heuristic Clustering. By analyzing the inputs, investigators identified a specific address (0x0d04...) as the "Aggregator" wallet where the stolen assets were consolidated before bridging.

Phase 2: The Cross-Chain “Hop” (Bridge Analysis)

The core of the investigation involved linking the theft on Harmony to the receipt of funds on Ethereum.

• Mechanism: The attackers utilized the bridge’s specific function to swap assets.
• Tracing Method: Time-Volume Correlation.

1. Source Event (Harmony): 10,000,000 USDC sent to the Horizon Bridge contract.
2. Bridge Latency: The specific bridge protocol has a known latency of roughly 15–20 minutes for finality.
3. Destination Event (Ethereum): Investigators scanned the Ethereum bridge contract for an outgoing transfer of roughly 10,000,000 USDC (minus bridge fees) occurring ~15 minutes after the Harmony transaction.
4. Confirmation: A matching transaction was found, crediting a new, previously inactive Ethereum wallet. This confirmed the link between the Harmony thief and the Ethereum entity.

Phase 3: Layering and Obfuscation (Ethereum Mainnet)

Once the funds arrived on Ethereum, the attackers engaged in “structuring” (also known as smurfing) to wash the funds.

• The Swap: The stolen stablecoins (USDC, USDT) were immediately swapped for Ethereum (ETH) using Decentralized Exchanges (DEXs) like Uniswap to prevent the stablecoin issuers (e.g., Circle) from freezing the assets.
• The Mixer: The attackers utilized Tornado Cash, a non-custodial privacy solution.
• **Pattern Recognition: **The funds were not deposited randomly. The attackers systematically deposited 100 ETH batches into Tornado Cash.
• Time Analysis: These deposits occurred at regular intervals (e.g., every 8 minutes), suggesting the use of an automated script rather than manual operation.
• Forensic Consequence: While Tornado Cash breaks the link between deposit and withdrawal, the volume of funds (85,000+ ETH) created a statistical anomaly. When a massive withdrawal occurred later matching these aggregate volumes, probabilistic attribution became possible.

Phase 4: The Second Hop (Railgun and Bitcoin)

Months later, in January 2023, the funds moved again, demonstrating a secondary obfuscation layer.

• Technique: The attackers utilized Railgun, a privacy system using Zero-Knowledge (ZK) proofs, hoping to obscure movement more effectively than the sanctioned Tornado Cash.
• The Exit: Funds were eventually moved to exchanges and converted to Bitcoin (BTC).
• Detection: Intelligence firms (like Elliptic and Chainalysis) noted that the “unshielding” (withdrawal) of assets from Railgun perfectly matched the “shielding” (deposit) timing of the stolen Harmony funds, proving that the privacy protocol did not provide perfect anonymity against large-volume analysis.

Summary of Techniques Applied

Conclusion of Case

This case highlights that while cross-chain bridges and privacy mixers introduce friction to the investigation, they do not erase the trail. The immutable timestamps and exact value matches across blockchains serve as the primary evidence for reconstructing the flow of illicit funds.

Challenges and Limitations

• Privacy Coins: Chains like Monero (XMR) use ring signatures and stealth addresses, rendering most transparent tracing methods ineffective.
• Mixers: Protocols like Tornado Cash break the on-chain link by pooling funds from many users. Advanced probabilistic analysis is required to “demix” these transactions, often with varying degrees of certainty.
• Off-Chain Transactions: Transactions occurring within the internal ledgers of centralized exchanges are not visible on the public blockchain.

Conclusion

Tracing cryptocurrency across multiple blockchains transforms a deterministic process into a probabilistic science. While chain-hopping significantly increases the complexity of an investigation, the immutable nature of the ledger ensures that data persists. By combining direct forensic analysis of bridge contracts with statistical time-volume correlation, investigators can reconstruct the trail of digital assets through the labyrinth of the decentralized web.