Secure digital evidence for court without a notary visit
Sector: Tertiary sector · Industry: Legal services and law firms · Organisation: Hangzhou Internet Court · Maturity level: Production
The Hangzhou Internet Court in the People's Republic of China has operated a judicial alliance chain since 18 September 2018, with notary offices, forensic examination centres and courts acting as nodes. Digital content is hashed and timestamped at the moment of capture, so the court verifies the hash instead of requiring a notarial deed. The Supreme People's Court formally regulated the admissibility of such evidence in September 2018 and refined it in its 2021 online litigation rules.
Documentation status
- Project status: Production (as of 18 September 2018) — Launch of the national judicial platform for blockchain-supported evidence preservation on 18 September 2018; the model was adopted by further internet courts in Beijing and Guangzhou.
- Evidence: Evidence medium
- Editorial review: pending
Description
The Hangzhou Internet Court in the People's Republic of China operates a judicial alliance chain through which digital evidence is secured. In cases of online legal infringements in copyright or trade, the evidence is fleeting because content is deleted or altered before proceedings begin. Classical notarial evidence preservation is too expensive and slow for this, so pursuing cases at the usual claim values in online trade often did not pay off.
In June 2018, the Hangzhou Internet Court recognised for the first time in the case Hangzhou Huatai Media vs Shenzhen Daotong Technology evidence anchored by a third platform in the Factom and Bitcoin blockchains. In September of the same year, the Supreme People's Court issued provisions for hearing cases by internet courts and confirmed that evidence can be authenticated via electronic signatures, timestamps, hash value verification, blockchain and other tamper-proof methods. On 18 September 2018, the court launched the first national judicial platform for blockchain-supported evidence preservation, in which notaries, forensic expert bodies and courts each operate their own nodes. Digital content is hashed and timestamped at the moment of capture; in proceedings, the court then verifies the hash instead of requiring a notarial certificate. In 2021, the Supreme People's Court clarified in its online procedural rules how such evidence is to be examined, thereby creating additional legal certainty. The model was adopted by further internet courts in Beijing and Guangzhou and is thus the most far-reaching case so far in which a state court itself acts as operator of an evidence platform.
Perspectives
B2B — organisations perspective
For rights holders, publishers and trading platforms, the threshold at which pursuing an online legal infringement becomes economically worthwhile is lowered. Companies with digital content in markets with comparable procedures can derive how evidence preservation can be organised as an ongoing process rather than a one-off measure.
B2C — consumers perspective
Private individuals can also securely preserve online content as evidence without having to organise a notary appointment beforehand. This makes pursuing legal infringements practical even for small claims.
Employees perspective
For judges, lawyers and forensic experts, the evaluation of evidence shifts from examining a document to examining a cryptographic proof and the circumstances of its creation. Notaries and expert bodies change their role from certifying third parties to node operators in a shared network.
Benefits
General
- Fleeting online content is securely preserved as evidence at the moment of capture.
- The expensive and slow notarial evidence preservation is eliminated for the captured case area.
- The evidential value is secured by provisions of the Supreme People's Court.
- Notaries, expert bodies and courts jointly operate nodes so that no party can manipulate alone.
B2B — organisations
- Lower threshold for economically sensible pursuit of legal infringements.
- Evidence preservation as an ongoing process rather than an expensive one-off measure.
B2C — consumers
- Evidence preservation for online matters without prior notary appointment.
Employees
- Clear judicial guidelines for examining blockchain-supported evidence.
- New role for notaries and expert bodies as node operators.
Challenges
General
- The model requires a statutory or supreme court basis, which is lacking in other legal systems.
- The anchoring proves the time and immutability, but not the substantive accuracy of the recorded content.
- The independence of the node operators is a prerequisite for the evidential value.
B2B — organisations
- Transfer to other legal systems requires a separate legal basis in each case.
Employees
- Judges and lawyers must be able to assess cryptographic proofs and their limitations.
Technology foundation
The court operates an alliance chain in which notaries, expert bodies and courts run their own nodes; the leading case from June 2018 was based on anchoring via Factom and the Bitcoin blockchain. A chain supported by several independent bodies is crucial here because the evidential value arises precisely from the fact that no party can subsequently alter the timestamp alone.
Implementation examples
Judicial platform for blockchain-supported evidence preservation in Hangzhou
In online legal infringements, evidence is fleeting because content is deleted or altered before proceedings begin; classical notarial evidence preservation is expensive and slow and often not worthwhile given the usual dispute values in online trade.
The Hangzhou Internet Court operates an alliance chain in which notaries, expert bodies and courts act as nodes. Digital content is hashed and anchored at capture; the court verifies the hash in proceedings.
In June 2018, the court in the Hangzhou Huatai Media v Shenzhen Daotong Technology case recognised for the first time evidence anchored via Factom and the Bitcoin blockchain. In September 2018, the Supreme People's Court confirmed in its regulations on Internet courts the admissibility of evidence authenticated by electronic signatures, timestamps, hash value verification and blockchain. On 18 September 2018, the court launched the first national judicial platform for blockchain-supported evidence preservation; in 2021, the Supreme People's Court clarified the review of such evidence in its online procedural rules.
The fleeting nature of digital evidence, disproportionate costs of notarial evidence preservation for small dispute values, and the open question of the evidential value of cryptographic anchoring in proceedings.
Tags
Evidence preservation, Judiciary, Copyright law, Timestamp, E-commerce, Alliance chain