Hackers are hiding stolen crypto in Zcash, and the Bitget breach may be the template

Hackers behind three separate crypto thefts, including the $387.5 million Bitget breach, are reportedly routing stolen funds into Zcash (ZEC), according to on-chain analyst Specter.

Funds from the Cryptobills Ledger tampering case and the $12 million Triple-A hack have also begun moving into the privacy coin, raising fresh questions about whether shielded transactions are becoming the thieves’ tool of choice.

How Zcash’s privacy features complicate fund tracing

Zcash differs from cryptocurrencies that expose transaction details publicly by allowing users to choose between transparent and shielded transactions. Its privacy technology can conceal the sender, recipient and transfer amount when funds move between shielded addresses.

That distinction helps explain why crypto hackers may find ZEC attractive when attempting to obscure the trail of stolen assets.

In the Bitget case, the attacker-linked wallets transferred approximately $3.9 million in ZEC into the Ironwood shielded pool through three transactions. Although blockchain observers could identify the deposits, the shielded system makes it harder to reconstruct subsequent transfers from public transaction data alone.

However, Zcash is not entirely untraceable. Transactions involving transparent addresses remain publicly visible, and investigators can examine activity before funds enter a shielded pool or after they emerge. Timing, transaction values and other available information may also help analysts investigate suspicious movements.

The technology itself has legitimate privacy uses. Zcash was designed to enable confidential payments, and its privacy features are not inherently evidence of criminal activity. The concern arises when investigators identify those features being used in connection with assets reportedly stolen during cyberattacks.

Cryptobills Ledger incident and Triple-A hack add to concerns

Specter’s observations have drawn attention to two additional incidents: the Cryptobills Ledger case and the $12 million Triple-A hack. According to the analyst’s assessment, funds connected to these incidents have also started flowing into ZEC following the attention surrounding the Bitget attack.

The Cryptobills incident involves reports of cryptocurrency theft linked to tampered Ledger hardware wallets distributed through the CryptoBilis reseller. Investigations reported that unauthorized components installed inside affected devices could capture users’ recovery phrases, potentially allowing attackers to gain control of their assets. Ledger has said its own systems and devices purchased directly from the company were not compromised.

Separately, Triple-A disclosed that an attacker gained unauthorized access to certain operational wallets belonging to its Singapore entity on July 25, 2026. The company said the incident affected its own treasury assets, while customer funds, transactions and settlements remained unaffected. It also reported engaging cybersecurity and blockchain-forensics specialists to support the investigation.

The reported movement of funds from these cases into ZEC adds another dimension to the investigations. Nevertheless, the available information does not establish the exact amount transferred into Zcash from either incident, nor does it prove that the same individuals were responsible for all three attacks.

For crypto hackers, the alleged pattern highlights how asset conversion and privacy tools can complicate efforts to follow stolen cryptocurrency across different wallets and blockchain networks. For investigators, establishing the origin of funds and linking transactions to specific suspects remains critical.

What the emerging pattern means for crypto security

The growing attention on ZEC underscores a persistent challenge for cryptocurrency security teams: tracing stolen funds becomes more complicated when attackers combine multiple wallets, asset swaps and privacy-enhancing transaction systems.

Blockchain investigators typically rely on publicly available transaction records, wallet attribution, exchange information and other evidence to reconstruct the movement of assets. Shielded transactions can create gaps in the publicly visible trail, but those gaps do not automatically prevent every form of investigation.

The Bitget incident illustrates the scale of the challenge. The exchange reported that approximately $387.5 million in assets had been transferred to attacker-controlled addresses during its September 24, 2026, breach. The revised total included assets across several blockchain networks, including Zcash.

The latest observations from Specter suggest that analysts should pay attention to cross-incident fund movements, particularly when assets from separate thefts appear to follow similar routes. Such similarities can provide investigative leads, although they are not sufficient on their own to establish common ownership or coordination.

For exchanges and security teams, rapid identification of suspicious transactions, timely reporting and cooperation with blockchain-forensics specialists remain important tools for investigating thefts and pursuing potential recovery.

Ultimately, the reported flow of stolen funds into ZEC raises fresh questions about how crypto hackers adapt their methods as investigators improve their tracking capabilities. The key issue is not simply whether stolen assets enter a privacy-focused cryptocurrency, but whether investigators can connect those movements to identifiable wallets, individuals and the original breaches.

Until more transaction-level evidence becomes available, Specter’s assessment should be treated as an emerging investigative observation rather than proof that every reported transfer is connected or that all the funds have become impossible to trace.

Key takeaway: The reported movement of funds linked to the Bitget, Cryptobills Ledger and Triple-A incidents into ZEC highlights the challenges of tracking stolen cryptocurrency. Zcash’s shielded transactions can limit public visibility, but the available evidence does not establish the full path or final destination of every asset.