[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, blockchain evidence is useful, but it's not "automatically accepted once it's uploaded to the blockchain". Blockchain evidence is legally classified as electronic data evidence, which has the characteristics of being tamper-proof, traceable, and verifiable, helping to prove that the data existed at a certain point in time and was not modified afterwards. However, courts review electronic data in accordance with the rules of authenticity, legality, and relevance, typically considering the following factors: the qualifications and neutrality of the evidence storage platform; the reliability of the blockchain technology used; the integrity and standardization of the evidence storage process; the consistency of the stored evidence with the original data; whether it can be verified by technical means; whether the evidence collection method is legal; and whether it can corroborate with other evidence. Therefore, blockchain evidence is not automatically accepted, and isolated blockchain records may be questioned if they cannot be matched with the original evidence. In practice, evidence can be strengthened by combining original carriers, the complete process of shooting or screen recording, notarization preservation, and judicial blockchain platforms to form a complete chain of evidence. In summary, blockchain evidence is an effective tool for enhancing the credibility of evidence, but it still needs to be corroborated by other evidence and withstand scrutiny.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

In disputes such as online infringement, e-contracts, and intellectual property, evidence is easily lost or tampered with, and blockchain evidence storage is widely used. A typical scenario is that the right holder claims rights after blockchain-storing webpages, chat records, and infringing content, but the other party questions the authenticity of the stored evidence and the platform's credibility. The disputes focus on whether the stored evidence can be admitted and how strong its probative force is.

II. Key points of contention

First, the legal attributes of blockchain evidence storage; Second, the key points of the court's review of electronic data; Third, the impact of the platform's qualifications and technical reliability; Fourth, the consistency between the evidence storage and the original data; Fifth, how to enhance the probative force. In practice, authenticity and verifiability are the core issues.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

The first layer is the legal attribute. Blockchain evidence belongs to electronic data and is one of the statutory types of evidence. Its value lies in fixing the existence and time of data through technical means, enhancing its authenticity and credibility, but this does not mean it will necessarily be admitted as evidence. The second layer is the review points. When courts review the authenticity of electronic data, they will pay attention to whether the environment of data generation, storage, and transmission is safe and reliable, whether the evidence platform has the corresponding qualifications and is neutral, whether the evidence-preservation process is standard and complete, whether the preserved content is consistent with the original data, whether it can be verified by technical means, and whether the evidence-gathering method is legal. The third layer is the impact of platforms and technologies. Choosing an evidence-preservation platform with qualifications, using mature and reliable technologies, and being able to provide verification services are generally more conducive to proving the evidentiary value. Evidence with unknown sources or that can be unilaterally modified has weaker evidentiary value. The fourth layer is the cooperation with other evidence. Blockchain evidence should be used in conjunction with the original carrier, a complete evidence-gathering process (such as video recording and screen recording), notarization preservation, judicial blockchain, and third-party appraisal to form a closed-loop evidence chain and avoid the dilemma of "only having on-chain records but unable to correspond to the original facts". The fifth layer is practical application. For easily perishable electronic evidence, it should be fixed in time, and attention should be paid to preserving the complete records of the entire evidence-gathering process. When necessary, notarization or appraisal should be applied simultaneously; in litigation, the authenticity of the evidence can be applied for verification. Henglu Law Firm Tip: Evidence preservation is just the first step. Whether it will be admitted as evidence depends on the comprehensive performance of the platform, the process, the content, and the verification. It is necessary to plan the evidence-gathering scheme in advance.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to select a compliant, technically reliable, and verifiable evidence preservation platform. The second step is to simultaneously record videos and screenshots during the evidence collection process and retain a complete record of the entire process. The third step is to combine the blockchain-based evidence preservation with original carriers, notarization, appraisal, and other forms of evidence. The fourth step is to apply for verification of the evidence preservation or present the signature verification materials during litigation. The fifth step is to promptly fix easily perishable evidence to avoid missing the opportunity for evidence collection. The main legal basis includes the provisions on electronic data in the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedure; and the relevant provisions on the review of blockchain-based evidence preservation in the Online Litigation Rules of the People's Court. The specific application shall be subject to the currently effective regulations.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Reminder

Three key points about blockchain evidence storage: It is electronic evidence, and while it is tamper-proof, it is not automatically admissible in court. Courts will evaluate the platform's qualifications, technical reliability, completeness of the process, and verification capabilities. When used in conjunction with original evidence, notarization, and appraisal, the evidence chain becomes more robust. It can be applied to contractual and corporate commercial disputesBusiness and contract disputes in enterprisesYou will receive a comprehensive solution for the service, which can be combined with intellectual property protection if necessary.Intellectual property protection and corporate lawFor reference, the sections involving judgment enforcement and debt recovery can be referred toCreditor's rights and debts, and enforcementFor inquiries regarding difficult litigations and evidence collection, please consult the columnSpecial servicesTeam.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Will the courts definitely recognize the evidence stored on the blockchain?

Not necessarily. Blockchain evidence belongs to electronic data and has the characteristics of tamper-proof and traceability, but the court will still review its authenticity, legality, and relevance, including the platform's qualifications, technical reliability, evidence-preservation process, consistency with the original data, and verifiability. Isolated evidence may not be accepted if it cannot correspond to the original facts.

Q2: What aspects does the court review?

The main factors to consider include: whether the evidence storage platform is compliant and neutral, whether the blockchain technology is reliable, whether the evidence storage process is complete and standardized, whether the content is consistent with the original data, whether it can be technically verified, whether the evidence collection method is legal, and whether it can corroborate with other evidence. Based on these factors, we can determine its authenticity and probative force.

Q3: How to enhance the probative force of the evidence?

A variety of measures can be taken simultaneously. Select a compliant platform and retain the complete evidence-gathering process (such as video recording and screen recording), and combine the evidence with the original carrier, notarization and preservation, judicial blockchain, and professional appraisal to form a closed-loop evidence chain; actively provide signature verification materials and apply for verification in litigation. The evidence corroborates each other, making the proof more convincing.

Q4: Does taking a screenshot and saving it count as using it?

It can be used as evidence, but its probative force is relatively weak. Ordinary screenshots are easily questioned about their authenticity and integrity, and it is difficult to prove that they have not been tampered with. It is recommended to fix web pages, chat records, etc. through compliant storage platforms, and cooperate with the complete evidence-gathering process and the original carriers; for major matters, you can go through notarization or apply for appraisal to enhance the probative force.

Q5: What kind of evidence is suitable for blockchain-based proof of existence?

Electronic data that is easily lost or tampered with is more suitable, such as webpage content, chat records, emails, electronic contract signing records, infringement pages, software codes, etc. Before depositing evidence, it is necessary to ensure that the evidence collection method is legal, the content is true and complete, and the original carrier and process records are preserved simultaneously, so as to facilitate verification and evidence presentation in the future.

The above content is based on the compilation of judicial practices in the Beijing area. The facts of individual cases and the jurisdiction of the court may affect the conclusions. Welcome to consult Henglu Law Firm for specific cases.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, so as to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Business and commercial legal services·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.