Research On Evidence Preservation And Chain-Of-Custody Issues For Cloud-Hosted Data In China
1. Hangzhou Internet Court – Blockchain Copyright Case (2018)
Facts:
A media company claimed copyright infringement against a technology company that republished its articles online.
The plaintiff preserved screenshots and content using a third-party blockchain anchoring platform.
Legal Issues:
Whether blockchain-anchored digital content could be considered admissible electronic evidence.
Chain-of-custody questions: who captured the data, how was it transmitted, and whether it was tampered with before submission.
Evidentiary Challenges:
Original medium (web pages) was dynamic and constantly changing.
Ensuring that the blockchain hash represented exactly the content at the claimed time.
Outcome:
Court accepted the evidence as authentic because:
The blockchain platform was independent and neutral.
Hashes and timestamps confirmed immutability after anchoring.
Procedural records documented how data was captured and submitted.
Highlighted that courts must still verify pre-anchoring procedures; blockchain alone doesn’t prove authenticity.
2. Beijing Internet Court – Tianping Chain Evidence Verification
Facts:
A contractual dispute where parties submitted digital documents preserved via blockchain.
Evidence was cloud-hosted and submitted through the Tianping Chain judicial blockchain system.
Legal Issues:
Authenticity of cloud-based contracts.
Chain-of-custody: who accessed the cloud data, when, and whether any modifications occurred.
Evidentiary Challenges:
Cloud documents were stored across multiple servers.
Need to ensure immutability and verify timestamps.
Outcome:
Court cross-checked the hash of submitted documents against Tianping Chain.
Confirmed evidence had not been tampered with post-preservation.
Emphasized that judges can rely on blockchain for chain-of-custody verification, provided technical procedures are documented.
3. Supreme People’s Procuratorate – Guidance on Blockchain Evidence (SPP, 2021)
Facts:
Prosecutors in multiple high-tech crime cases submitted blockchain-preserved communications and logs as evidence.
Legal Issues:
How to verify authenticity and integrity of blockchain-anchored evidence.
Determining admissibility when evidence was originally collected by non-government technical staff.
Evidentiary Challenges:
Pre-anchoring procedures were sometimes opaque.
Risk of improperly captured or tampered data before being hashed onto blockchain.
Outcome / Guidance:
Prosecutors should:
Audit the platform used for anchoring.
Verify the method and timing of data capture.
Maintain complete chain-of-custody logs.
Reinforced that blockchain immutability alone does not guarantee admissibility.
4. Procuratorial Guiding Case No. 67 – Cross-Border Electronic Data
Facts:
A fraud investigation involved cloud-stored communications hosted overseas.
Authorities needed to collect and preserve these messages for prosecution.
Legal Issues:
Can cloud-hosted data outside China be used as evidence?
How to maintain chain-of-custody across jurisdictions?
Evidentiary Challenges:
Ensuring data was not modified during transfer to Chinese jurisdiction.
Tracking each step of extraction, transmission, and storage.
Outcome:
Court accepted evidence after verifying:
Original data source and ownership.
Detailed logs of extraction and transfer.
Secure storage in China after import.
Highlighted that careful documentation of each step is essential for admissibility.
5. Shenzhen Internet Court – E-Commerce Data Preservation Case
Facts:
A seller sued an e-commerce platform for defamation and improper account suspension.
Evidence included transaction logs, chat records, and complaint records stored on the platform’s cloud servers.
Legal Issues:
Admissibility of platform-stored data as electronic evidence.
Maintaining integrity and chain-of-custody when extraction is performed by platform staff.
Evidentiary Challenges:
Logs could be altered by the platform before submission.
Lack of independent preservation or timestamping.
Outcome:
Court required:
Platform to provide a notarized or blockchain-anchored copy of the data.
Technical affidavit explaining extraction process.
Audit trail showing who accessed or modified the data.
With these measures, evidence was admitted.
6. Shanghai Intellectual Property Court – Cloud File Storage Case
Facts:
Dispute over trade secrets allegedly leaked via a cloud storage provider.
Plaintiff submitted screenshots and cloud download logs as evidence.
Legal Issues:
Authenticity of cloud-hosted files.
Chain-of-custody for documents stored in third-party servers.
Evidentiary Challenges:
Data was accessible to multiple users; risk of tampering or deletion.
Cloud provider’s cooperation was necessary for accurate extraction.
Outcome:
Court requested:
Detailed extraction logs from cloud provider.
Cryptographic hash verification of files.
Witness testimony from provider’s IT staff.
Evidence was accepted, demonstrating that rigorous chain-of-custody procedures are critical.
Key Observations Across Cases
Blockchain anchoring is widely accepted as a tool for proving post-preservation integrity.
Pre-preservation authenticity is critical; courts scrutinize how data was initially captured.
Chain-of-custody documentation (who accessed, when, how) is increasingly required.
Third-party cooperation (cloud providers, technical staff) is essential.
Notarization or technical affidavits often supplement blockchain or logs to strengthen admissibility.
RELATED Blog
comments