The Supreme Court issued a draft for soliciting opinions on four provisions regarding the acceptance of blockchain evidence

On January 21, 2021, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning Online Case Handling by People's Courts" (Draft for Comments) (hereinafter referred to as the "Draft for Online Case Handling"), which contains a total of 36 articles, of which 4 are related to the application of blockchain evidence, namely Article 14, Article 15, Article 16 and Article 17. Lawyer Dong now makes a brief analysis of the relevant provisions.

1. The effectiveness of blockchain evidence

The provisions provide that:
Article 14 Where evidence submitted by a party is stored through blockchain technology and is consistent after technical verification, it is presumed that the evidence material has not been tampered with after being uploaded to the chain, and the people's court may determine the authenticity of the evidence, unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary to overturn it.

Lawyer’s interpretation:

This article is a principled provision on the effectiveness of blockchain evidence in the draft opinion on online case handling: that is, after "blockchain technology storage + technical verification", the court can presume that the blockchain evidence material is authentic.

When examining case evidence, the people's courts generally verify the three characteristics of the evidence, namely: authenticity, legality and relevance. The authenticity of evidence focuses on the authenticity of the evidence itself, that is, the evidence is consistent with the current situation when it is generated, and there is no forgery or tampering. The main focus of the draft opinion on online case handling is on the authenticity of evidence, which can also be seen from the following provisions.

Regarding the confirmation of evidence formed by blockchain technology, my country's previous judicial interpretations have also had relevant provisions, such as Article 11, Paragraph 2 of the Supreme People's Court's "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts": "If the electronic data submitted by the parties can be proved to be authentic through electronic signatures, trusted timestamps, hash value verification, blockchain and other evidence collection, fixation and tamper-proof technical means or through electronic evidence collection and storage platform authentication, the Internet Court shall confirm it.

At the same time, the draft opinion on online case handling does not absolutely recognize the authenticity of evidence stored by blockchain technology. If there is contrary evidence, the evidence can also be overturned.

2. Blockchain Evidence Review Rules

Article content:
Article 15 Where a party raises an objection to blockchain evidence and has reasonable grounds, the people's court shall mainly review the following contents:
(1) Whether the evidence storage platform complies with the relevant provisions of relevant national departments on providing blockchain evidence storage services;
(2) Whether the parties have any vested interest in the evidence storage platform and whether they have used technical means to improperly interfere with the evidence collection and storage process;
(3) Whether the information system of the evidence storage platform complies with national or industry standards for cleanliness, security, and availability;
(iv) Whether the evidence storage technology and process conform to the requirements of the Technical Specifications for Electronic Data Evidence Storage in terms of system environment, technical security, encryption methods, and data transmission information verification.

Lawyer’s interpretation:

This provision is the four dimensions of the People's Court's review of blockchain evidence when there is doubt about blockchain evidence:

The first dimension is about the qualification requirements of the evidence storage platform. That is, whether the platform providing blockchain evidence storage services complies with relevant national regulations, has completed relevant registration work or has the corresponding technical capabilities, etc. The more detailed regulation is the "Blockchain Information Service Management Regulations" issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China on January 10, 2019. The regulations require entities that provide information services to the public through websites, applications, etc. based on blockchain technology or systems to perform filing procedures.

The second dimension is the neutrality of the evidence storage platform. The court will examine whether there is a conflict of interest between the parties and the evidence storage platform, and whether the evidence storage platform has used technical means to intervene in the process of evidence collection and storage.

The third dimension is the review of the information system of the evidence storage platform. The draft opinion on online case handling requires that the information system comply with the cleanliness, security and availability required by national standards or industry standards. It is understood that the blockchain industry standards currently include the "Blockchain Application Guide" issued by the China Blockchain Technology and Industry Development Forum, and the national standard for blockchain evidence storage is underway.

The fourth dimension is the application of the norms of evidence storage technology and process. Blockchain evidence storage technology and process are subject to the "Technical Specifications for Electronic Data Evidence Storage", which is a judicial administration industry standard issued by the Ministry of Justice of my country and came into effect on May 29, 2020. The specification has included blockchain technology in the relevant technical implementation methods. Friends who need it can add Lawyer Dong's WeChat (wwwfeid) to request it. The draft opinion on online case handling requires that blockchain evidence storage technology and process should be subject to the "Technical Specifications for Electronic Data Evidence Storage" in terms of system environment, technical security, encryption method, data transmission, information verification, etc.

3. Authenticity review of data before uploading to the blockchain

Article content:
Article 16 Where a party claims that data is no longer authentic when it is stored on a blockchain and provides evidence to prove it or explain the reasons, the people's court shall review it.
According to the case, the people's court may require the party providing blockchain evidence to provide evidence to prove the authenticity of the on-chain evidence data, or explain the specific source, generation mechanism, storage process, third-party notarization, related verification data, etc. of the on-chain evidence data. If the party fails to provide evidence or make a reasonable explanation, and the blockchain evidence cannot be verified with other evidence, the people's court will not confirm the authenticity of the evidence.

Lawyer’s interpretation:

Article 15 of the Supreme Court's draft opinion on online case handling is about the review of evidence on the chain. At present, the feature of electronic data that cannot be tampered with after being put on the chain has been recognized by all sectors. However, when it is put on the chain, the relevant data may already be untrue. In this regard, the idea of ​​the People's Court in the draft opinion on online case handling is to first ask the party providing evidence to explain and state the reasons, and then require the party providing the stored evidence to provide evidence to prove the authenticity of the evidence stored on the chain, or make reasonable explanations for the following situations, including but not limited to:

(1) Specific sources of on-chain evidence data

(2) Generation mechanism of on-chain evidence data

(3) Storage process of on-chain evidence data

(4) Third-party notarization and witnessing of on-chain evidence data

(5) Correlation and verification data of on-chain evidence data

From this clause, we can see that although the draft opinion on online case handling presumes the authenticity of blockchain evidence in principle, it will also review the situation when the relevant evidence was uploaded to the chain and before. And if the relevant evidence is notarized by a notary office or witnessed by a lawyer, the authenticity of the evidence will be recognized.

4. Blockchain Evidence Reinforcement and Identification

Article content:
Article 17 The parties may apply for a person with specialized knowledge to provide opinions on technical issues related to blockchain platform evidence storage. The people's court may, based on the application of the parties or on its own authority, entrust an appraisal of the authenticity of blockchain evidence or retrieve other relevant evidence for verification.

Lawyer’s interpretation:

This provision strengthens the appraisal of blockchain evidence. Given the professional nature of blockchain technology, the general public may use relevant technologies to store evidence, but are not clear about the relevant principles and operating mechanisms. When the parties raise opinions on evidence storage technology, the people's court may entrust an appraisal or retrieve other relevant evidence for verification to confirm whether the authenticity of evidence stored in blockchain technology is recognized.

Through the above four provisions, we can see that after the continuous recognition of blockchain storage evidence in recent years, the Supreme Court has formed a basic idea for reviewing related cases. This also reminds companies engaged in the operation of blockchain evidence storage platforms to promptly improve their operating procedures in accordance with relevant regulations to ensure that the stored evidence increases the possibility of being adopted by the court.

Note: This article is for communication and learning purposes only and is not an informal legal opinion.