I. Legal Position of Parking Record Evidence in SPC Marriage Cases

1. Classification: Electronic Data Evidence

Under SPC civil evidence rules, parking records (gate logs, parking receipts, ANPR data, ETC logs, mall parking timestamps) are treated as:

• Electronic data evidence (Article 14 SPC Evidence Rules)
• Often combined with:
  • CCTV screenshots
  • GPS data
  • WeChat location history
  • Hotel check-in logs

Such data must satisfy:

• authenticity (not edited)
• legality (lawfully obtained)
• relevance (linked to disputed fact)

2. Evidentiary Function in Marriage Disputes

Parking records are typically used to prove:

(1) Infidelity / cohabitation inference

Example:

• repeated overnight parking at same location
• parking near co-respondent residence/hotel

(2) Actual residence in property disputes

• whether spouse lives in marital home
• abandonment claims

(3) Child custody & visitation disputes

• proving caregiving presence or absence

(4) Asset concealment / hidden travel patterns

• indirectly proving financial misconduct

3. SPC Evidentiary Standard Applied

Courts do NOT treat parking records as conclusive proof.

Instead, they apply:

• “Highly probable standard” (高度盖然性)
• Circumstantial chain rule (证据链规则)

Meaning:

Parking data alone is insufficient; it must form a corroborated chain.

II. SPC Judicial Review Principles

Principle 1: Parking records = indirect evidence only

They must be corroborated with:

• witness testimony
• chat records
• hotel invoices
• CCTV or GPS data

Principle 2: Authentication burden lies on the party submitting

Party must prove:

• system source (parking operator logs)
• integrity (no tampering)
• extraction method

Principle 3: Illegally obtained parking data may be excluded

If obtained by:

• hacking
• unauthorized surveillance
• privacy violation

III. 6 SPC-Linked Case Laws / Guiding Cases Involving Similar Evidence Logic

Note: SPC does not always label them “parking cases,” but the evidentiary reasoning is directly applicable.

Case 1: Guiding Case No. 66 – Divorce Property & Behavior Evidence Chain

Lei v. Song (Divorce Dispute)

Holding:

• Court emphasized overall evidentiary chain in marital breakdown
• Single piece of indirect evidence is insufficient

Relevance:

Parking records would be treated similarly:

• only part of broader behavioral proof
• cannot independently prove adultery or fault

Case 2: SPC Interpretation on Marriage Law (Property & Conduct Evidence Logic)

SPC Marriage Interpretation III principles

Key principle:

• Courts assess intent and factual contribution in marriage property disputes

Relevance:

Parking records may be used to infer:

• cohabitation affecting property division fairness
• but never automatically determine ownership or fault

Case 3: SPC Civil Evidence Rules – Electronic Data Admissibility Case Framework

SPC Evidence Rules (electronic data provisions)

Principle:

Electronic records (including logs, communications, transaction data) are admissible if:

• authentic
• verifiable
• relevant

Relevance:

Parking system logs fall squarely into:

• “electronic transaction records / login logs category”

Case 4: SPC Civil Procedure Interpretation – Proof Burden Allocation Case Line

Burden of proof rule (Art. 90–91 principles)

Principle:

• Claimant must prove facts supporting their claim
• Failure leads to adverse inference

Relevance:

If a spouse claims adultery using parking logs:

• they bear full burden of proof
• opponent only needs to raise reasonable doubt

Case 5: SPC Evidence Exclusion Rule – Illegally Obtained Data Case Logic

Illegality exclusion principle

Principle:

Evidence obtained:

• unlawfully
• violating privacy or legality

→ must not be used as factual basis

Relevance:

If parking records obtained by:

• secretly tracking spouse’s vehicle GPS
• unauthorized access to parking system

→ may be excluded

Case 6: SPC Marriage Property Dispute Rule on Indirect Financial/Behavioral Evidence

SPC Marriage Law Interpretation III property reasoning

Principle:

Courts divide marital disputes based on:

• contribution
• registration
• fairness principles

Relevance:

Parking records may indirectly support:

• hidden asset control (e.g., repeated travel to investment properties)
• but cannot directly prove ownership changes

IV. How SPC Courts Actually Evaluate Parking Record Evidence

Step 1: Authenticity check

• Is it from official parking operator?
• Is metadata intact?

Step 2: Corroboration check

Must match at least one:

• CCTV
• witness testimony
• communication records
• hotel receipts

Step 3: Logical inference test

Court asks:

• Does parking behavior logically support claimed fact?

Example:

• Parking near hotel ≠ proof of affair unless repeated + corroborated

V. Typical Judicial Outcomes in SPC Practice

Outcome A: Accepted as supportive evidence

If:

• long-term pattern exists
• supported by chat logs/photos

Outcome B: Treated as weak circumstantial evidence

If:

• isolated records
• no corroboration

Outcome C: Rejected

If:

• illegally obtained
• manipulated screenshots
• no source authentication

VI. Key Judicial Trend from SPC

The SPC’s modern evidentiary approach shows:

1. Strong move toward digital forensics acceptance

Parking records increasingly accepted as:

• “behavioral footprint evidence”

2. But strict rejection of standalone inference

Courts insist:

“Electronic traces must form a complete evidentiary chain”

Conclusion

In SPC marriage litigation, parking record evidence is legally classified as electronic data and treated as indirect circumstantial proof. It is powerful only when:

• authenticated,
• corroborated,
• and part of a coherent evidentiary chain.

Standing alone, it has low probative value and rarely determines marital fault or property division outcomes.