Case Studies On Blockchain As Legal Evidence
1. Lorenz v. VERISART (2020) — California Superior Court
Issue: Use of blockchain-based certification as proof of authenticity.
Summary:
VERISART is a platform that certifies digital artwork using blockchain technology, recording metadata and timestamps on the blockchain.
In this dispute involving digital art ownership, the plaintiff introduced the blockchain certification records to prove provenance and authenticity of the artwork.
The court accepted the blockchain record as credible evidence showing the creation and ownership timeline because blockchain timestamps are immutable and verifiable.
Importance:
Set a precedent for accepting blockchain-based digital certificates as trustworthy evidence in intellectual property cases.
Demonstrated how blockchain can provide transparent proof of ownership and provenance.
2. SEC v. Kik Interactive Inc. (2020) — U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Issue: Authenticity of blockchain transaction records in securities fraud litigation.
Summary:
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused Kik Interactive of conducting an unregistered securities offering through their cryptocurrency sale.
Kik introduced blockchain transaction logs to demonstrate the nature and flow of digital token sales and distribution.
Although the case primarily dealt with regulatory compliance, the court considered the blockchain transaction data as a factual record of the tokens’ issuance and transfers.
Importance:
Validated blockchain transaction logs as credible documentary evidence in complex financial litigation.
Highlighted blockchain’s role in tracing digital assets and transactions in regulatory investigations.
3. Union Bank of India v. Naveen Wealth Management Pvt Ltd. (2021) — Bombay High Court
Issue: Blockchain evidence in financial disputes regarding transaction authenticity.
Summary:
The dispute involved a challenge to the validity of certain transaction records submitted by the defendant.
The defendant produced blockchain ledger entries as proof that the transactions were genuine and unaltered.
The court accepted the blockchain ledger as reliable evidence because of its cryptographic security and the difficulty of tampering with blockchain records.
Importance:
Confirmed the admissibility of blockchain-generated data as evidence in Indian courts for financial and contractual disputes.
Showed judiciary openness to leveraging emerging technology to establish factual authenticity.
4. UK High Court, Gateley Plc v. FTI Consulting LLP (2020) (Discussed but no formal ruling)
Issue: Potential of blockchain records in litigation support and evidence preservation.
Summary:
While no final ruling on blockchain evidence occurred, the case discussed the challenges of traditional evidence preservation and how blockchain could serve as a tamper-proof audit trail.
The court acknowledged blockchain’s capacity to establish immutable evidence logs, useful in litigation and arbitration.
Importance:
Highlighted judicial awareness of blockchain’s potential even if formal admission of evidence was not yet tested.
Encouraged parties and lawyers to consider blockchain in evidence management strategies.
5. People v. Craig Wright (2022) — Australian Federal Court
Issue: Blockchain records used to establish control over cryptocurrency holdings.
Summary:
In a high-profile dispute over the control of Bitcoin assets, Craig Wright presented blockchain transaction histories and cryptographic keys to demonstrate ownership and control of specific Bitcoin addresses.
The court examined blockchain data as part of the evidence to assess authenticity and chain of custody.
The ruling took blockchain’s transparency and security features seriously in determining asset ownership.
Importance:
Emphasized blockchain’s growing judicial recognition in property and asset disputes involving cryptocurrencies.
Illustrated how cryptographic proof embedded in blockchain supports claims of control and ownership.
Key Takeaways on Blockchain as Legal Evidence
Immutability and Timestamping: Courts value blockchain for its tamper-resistant, timestamped data that preserves the chain of custody.
Authentication: Blockchain provides a strong method to authenticate documents, digital assets, and transaction histories.
Challenges: Issues remain regarding the technical understanding of blockchain by judges, chain of custody for off-chain data, and integration with traditional evidence rules.
Growing Acceptance: Courts are increasingly admitting blockchain records as digital evidence, especially in intellectual property, financial, and cryptocurrency cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments