The Dark Art of Financial Disguise in Web3: Money Laundering Schemes and Countermeasures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rise of Web3 and Decentralized Finance (DeFi) has enabled borderless access to financial services empowered by smart contracts and blockchain technology. However, the ecosystem’s trustless, permissionless, and borderless nature presents substantial regulatory challenges. The absence of centralized oversight and the technical complexity create fertile ground for financial crimes. Among these, money laundering is particularly concerning, as in the event of successful scams, code exploits, and market manipulations, it facilitates covert movement of illicit gains. Beyond this, there is a growing concern that cryptocurrencies can be leveraged to launder proceeds from drug trafficking, or to transfer funds linked to terrorism financing.This survey aims to outline a taxonomy of high-level strategies and underlying mechanisms exploited to facilitate money laundering in Web3. We examine how criminals leverage the pseudonymous nature of Web3, alongside weak regulatory frameworks, to obscure illicit financial activities. Our study seeks to bridge existing knowledge gaps on laundering schemes, identify open challenges in the detection and prevention of such activities, and propose future research directions to foster a more transparent Web3 financial ecosystem—offering valuable insights for researchers, policymakers, and industry practitioners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".