Blockchain Evidence Admissibility In Prc Courts
Blockchain Evidence Admissibility in PRC Courts
Since 2018, Chinese courts—especially the Internet Courts—have formally recognized blockchain-stored electronic data as admissible evidence. This recognition is grounded in:
1. PRC Evidence Law (amended 2019)
Electronic data is explicitly listed as a valid evidence type.
Courts evaluate authenticity, relevance, and legality of collection.
2. PRC Civil Procedure Law
Allows electronic data as proof if reliability can be demonstrated.
3. Supreme People’s Court (SPC) Provisions on Internet Court Procedures (2018)
Internet courts may admit blockchain evidence if:
The collection process is verifiable
Blockchain signatures and timestamps are reliable
Tamper-resistance can be technically demonstrated
4. Technical Criteria Often Considered
Courts have consistently looked at:
Chain integrity
Trusted timestamping
Hash consistency
Clear ownership or authorship
Reliable collection node (e.g., not a private chain controlled by one party)
Traceability and auditability of the data
📚 Major PRC Cases Recognizing Blockchain Evidence
Below are six detailed cases showing how Chinese courts use blockchain evidence.
CASE 1 — Hangzhou Internet Court (2018)
“Hangzhou Huatai Yimei Technology Co. Ltd. v. Shenzhen Daotong Technology Co. Ltd.”
Significance: First case in China to officially admit blockchain evidence.
Facts
Plaintiff alleged copyright infringement of online articles.
Plaintiff used a third-party blockchain evidence preservation platform (Baoquan.com)
Data included article content, timestamps, and hashing stored on a consortium blockchain.
Court’s Reasoning
Technical reliability:
Multi-node distributed storage
Hash verification
Trusted timestamps
Integrity:
No sign of tampering
Transparent collection process:
Plaintiff demonstrated step-by-step collection
Outcome
Blockchain evidence was admitted and played a key role in ruling for the plaintiff.
CASE 2 — Hangzhou Internet Court (2019)
Copyright dispute involving a WeChat public account
The plaintiff captured screenshots and HTML files of infringing articles and stored them via:
Blockchain platform
Trusted timestamping
CA digital certificates
Court’s Analysis
Blockchain preserved the original publication date
Multi-point storage prevented tampering
Evidence collection was complete, traceable, and continuous
Outcome
Blockchain evidence admitted, damages awarded.
CASE 3 — Beijing Internet Court (2019)
“Meiyou v. Beijing Baidu Netcom Technology Co., Ltd.”
Significance: Demonstrated the court’s methodology for evaluating blockchain authentication.
Facts
Defendant allegedly used plaintiff’s images without permission.
Plaintiff preserved evidence using blockchain + timestamp + witness node verification.
Court’s Reasoning
Evidence authenticity established through:
Hash match
Trusted timestamp
Evidence collection record
Blockchain platform used decentralized nodes, increasing credibility.
Outcome
Court held that blockchain effectively solved the “high cost of traditional notarization” and accepted the evidence.
CASE 4 — Guangzhou Internet Court (2020)
Network copyright case using judicial blockchain alliance chain
A cross-departmental judicial blockchain consortium chain was used, involving:
Courts
Notary offices
Judicial authentication centers
Key Points
Multi-institution endorsement strengthened reliability
Court emphasized that blockchain cannot replace judicial review, but assists in authenticity determination.
Outcome
Blockchain evidence validated, copyrighted content confirmed.
CASE 5 — Shanghai Pudong New Area People’s Court (2020)
Smart contract & financial transaction dispute case
Significance: Extended blockchain recognition beyond simple copyright issues.
Facts
Parties disputed digital asset transactions recorded on a public blockchain.
Court evaluated:
Smart contract execution logs
Blockchain transaction IDs
Timestamp integrity
Court’s Analysis
Public blockchain has higher transparency
Immutable ledger made falsification nearly impossible
Technical experts provided chain verification reports
Outcome
Blockchain transaction records deemed credible and admissible.
CASE 6 — Jiangsu Province High People’s Court (2021)
Loan agreement dispute — blockchain-based electronic contract
Facts
Parties signed an e-contract stored on a blockchain platform.
Defendant contested authenticity, claiming forgery.
Court’s Reasoning
Blockchain preserved contract generation time
Digital signature matched identity of contracting party
Hash consistent with original document
Outcome
The electronic contract on blockchain was ruled authentic, and defendant held liable.
📌 Key Takeaways from Case Trends
✔ Blockchain does NOT automatically equal admissibility
Courts still examine:
Whether the collection process is credible
Whether both parties had equal access to verification
Whether blockchain is public, consortium, or private
Whether digital signature or identity proof is tied to parties
✔ Consortium chains used in China are favored
Because they include:
Courts
Notarization authorities
Govt agencies
This increases judicial trust.
✔ Blockchain is strongest in:
Copyright disputes
E-commerce contract disputes
Online infringement cases
Digital asset transaction disputes
✔ Blockchain reduces:
Cost of notarization
Risk of tampering
Collection disputes
Time spent validating authenticity
RELATED Blog
comments