In June 2018, the Hangzhou Internet Court in China ruled that evidence anchored to the Factom and Bitcoin blockchains by a third party platform met the legal standard for admissible digital evidence. The case was a copyright dispute between a Hangzhou media company and a Shenzhen technology firm.

The plaintiff had captured screenshots and source code from the defendant's website, packaged them into an archive, hashed the result, and anchored that hash to two public blockchains through a service called Baoquan.com. The court evaluated the independence of the custodian, the technical reliability of the capture process, and the consistency of the hash values stored on chain. It found all three sufficient.

The judgment was the first instance of a Chinese court admitting blockchain preserved evidence and the first to articulate a reasoned framework for how such evidence should be reviewed. That ruling was followed three months later by a Supreme People's Court interpretation that codified the principle for the country's new internet court system.

Within days of the interpretation taking effect, a second case using Factom anchored evidence was filed in Beijing and accepted. Across multiple major jurisdictions over the years that followed, courts and federal agencies have arrived through different procedural routes at a convergent recognition.

This recognition holds that cryptographically anchored blockchain data can serve as legally credible evidence when the underlying engineering meets established standards.

Key Points


  • The Hangzhou Internet Court admitted blockchain-anchored evidence in June 2018 in a copyright case involving Factom and Bitcoin anchoring through the Baoquan.com platform.
  • China's Supreme People's Court codified blockchain evidence admissibility in September 2018 through its Provisions on the Hearing of Cases by Internet Courts.
  • ByteDance's September 2018 case against Baidu's Huopai at the Beijing Internet Court used Factom-anchored evidence and produced three procedural firsts.
  • The 2024 Sterlingov ruling in US federal court held that Chainalysis blockchain analytics satisfies the Daubert standard for admissible expert evidence.
  • Federal procurement of blockchain analytics tooling reflects an operational consensus that on-chain data is forensically credible across enforcement and regulatory contexts.
  • The architectural pattern validated by these rulings remains underutilized in commercial due diligence, audit, and compliance workflows.

The Chinese Line of Doctrine


The Hangzhou case involved Hangzhou Huatai Yimei Culture Media Co. and Shenzhen Daotong Technology Development Co. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had republished a licensed article without authorization. To preserve evidence of the infringing webpage, the plaintiff used Baoquan.com, an early Chinese provider of blockchain based digital evidence preservation services.

The platform packaged screenshots, source code, and call logs into a single archive, computed a hash of the archive, and anchored the hash to the Factom and Bitcoin blockchains with timestamps. The court's published opinion examined three questions in sequence, as analyzed in the Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law and Policy.

The first was whether Baoquan was sufficiently independent of the plaintiff, which the court determined it was based on the absence of corporate or shareholder relationships. The second was whether the capture technology was reliable, which the court evaluated by reviewing the use of standard open source tools for web capture and the cryptographic process for hashing.

The third was whether the data preserved on chain matched the data the plaintiff submitted, which the court verified by independently computing and comparing hashes.

In September 2018, China's Supreme People's Court issued its Provisions on the Hearing of Cases by Internet Courts, summarized by the Library of Congress. Article 11 of the interpretation stated that internet courts shall recognize digital data submitted as evidence if collected and stored via blockchain with digital signatures, reliable timestamps, and hash value verification, provided that parties could demonstrate the authenticity of the technology.

The provisions took effect on September 7, 2018. On September 11, four days later, ByteDance filed a copyright complaint at the newly established Beijing Internet Court against Baidu's Huopai short video platform. The complaint alleged that Huopai had reposted videos originating on Douyin without authorization.

Evidence of the alleged infringement was preserved by Beijing Zhongjing Tianping, a third party custodian, which captured the relevant content and anchored cryptographic hashes to the Factom blockchain at the plaintiff's request. The Beijing court accepted the blockchain evidence as valid.

The case carried three procedural firsts: the first short video copyright dispute in China, the first case heard by the Beijing Internet Court, and the first time that court admitted blockchain anchored evidence. The court ultimately ruled that Baidu had not infringed in the specific instance because the content had been removed promptly, while the evidentiary architecture stood.

Factom protocol anchored proofs appeared at the center of both landmark rulings in 2018, in different courts and under different procedural frameworks.

More Technology Articles

Ontology Engineering and the Problem of Machine-Readable Meaning
artistic representation of ontology and semantics
IPFS and the Enterprise Compliance Gap in Decentralized Storage
artistic representation of massively distributed data storage
VRML and the Platform Problem of the First 3D Web
VRML-based render of a Japanese city
Physical AI’s Human Data Supply Chain Is Taking Shape
artistic representation of a chinese humanoid robot trained on human motion data

Federal Recognition in the United States


The American legal system arrived at a parallel recognition through case law and federal procurement rather than through a codified judicial interpretation. Forensic blockchain analytics firms have expanded their operational footprint since the late 2010s on the premise that on chain data is reliable, attributable, and auditable enough to support criminal conviction and regulatory enforcement.

Chainalysis, backed by In-Q-Tel, occupies one position in that market. ANChain.AI, founded in 2018 by Victor Fang and engaged with federal regulators and law enforcement agencies, occupies a parallel position with an AI driven methodology. That federal procurement footprint reflects an operational consensus that has been building for years.

Beige Media has previously examined the structured diligence process that In-Q-Tel applies to its investments, which evaluates startup technology against government problem sets, technical performance, and commercial viability before capital is deployed. The presence of blockchain analytics firms inside that pipeline indicates that the question of whether on chain data is forensically credible was answered, in federal practice, well before any reviewing court formalized the standard.

The standard was tested formally in United States v. Sterlingov, decided in 2024 by Judge Randolph Moss of the US District Court for the District of Columbia. The case concerned the operation of Bitcoin Fog, a long running custodial bitcoin mixer. The defense challenged the admissibility of expert testimony based on Chainalysis Reactor under the Daubert standard, which governs the reliability of expert methodology in federal proceedings.

The court held that the Chainalysis methodology constituted the product of reliable principles and methods and was admissible as substantive evidence, as analyzed in legal commentary published by Norton Rose Fulbright. The reasoning emphasized determinism and reproducibility. The clustering and attribution methods produce the same outputs when given the same inputs, and the analytical chain can be reconstructed step by step for independent review.

The defense argued that the software functioned as a black box; the court found that the methodology was transparent and verifiable in the manner that Daubert requires. The Sterlingov ruling applied the existing Daubert framework and found that a specific analytical methodology satisfied it.

The doctrinal effect is significant because Daubert challenges in federal court create binding admissibility precedent that defense attorneys and prosecutors then negotiate around in subsequent cases.

The decision did not stand alone in establishing federal comfort with blockchain analytics. Earlier in the same year, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a trial court's admission of blockchain analytics expert evidence in United States v. Crater, a wire fraud case involving the My Big Coin cryptocurrency.

What the Convergence Recognizes


Both lines of doctrine validate the same underlying architecture. Evidence captured at the moment of observation, transformed into a tamper evident hash, timestamped and anchored to a public ledger that no party to the dispute controls, and preserved by a neutral intermediary, satisfies the legal tests that courts apply to digital evidence in both jurisdictions.

The Chinese internet courts approached the question through codification of admissibility criteria. American federal courts approached it through Daubert hearings on specific analytical methodologies. The architectural conclusion is consistent across both paths.

What has not yet followed is broad adoption of the same architecture at the civil and commercial diligence layer. Forensic blockchain analytics operates primarily in support of enforcement, where the customers are prosecutors, regulators, and law enforcement agencies. The Chinese internet court cases operated in the intellectual property context.

The procedures used for commercial due diligence, audit, and compliance continue to rely predominantly on traditional custodial attestation, including notarization, certified records, affidavits, and paper based chains of custody. The forensic properties of those traditional mechanisms differ from cryptographically anchored provenance in important ways.

A certified records request validates that a custodian possesses a document at the time of the request. A blockchain anchored hash validates that a specific data state existed at a specific time, independent of any custodian. The two operate at different points in the assurance chain, and they answer different evidentiary questions.

The legal standard for cryptographic provenance is now established in two major jurisdictions through different procedural routes. The commercial infrastructure to apply that standard systematically in diligence, audit, and compliance workflows is less developed.

Factom's Lineage and the Open Question


Factom's design separated proof of data integrity from data storage. The protocol anchored cryptographic fingerprints to a public ledger while the underlying content remained in the original system of record. That separation is what made the resulting evidence legally legible in the Chinese cases. The custodian was neutral, the technology was technically verifiable, and the anchor was independent of any party to the dispute.

The same architectural pattern attracted federal research and development funding in the same period. Beige Media has previously documented the Department of Homeland Security Silicon Valley Innovation Program's awards to Factom between 2016 and 2019, which totaled approximately $789,000 across four phases.

Those awards funded staged prototypes for IoT device integrity, evidence anchoring from border sensors, and supply chain credential verification. The federal program treated the integrity proof pattern as a candidate technology for data integrity in homeland security operations.

In 2021, Inveniam Capital Partners acquired Factom Inc., including its blockchain related patents, as documented at the time.

The architectural pattern that Factom established, hash anchored and timestamped provenance on a public ledger held by a neutral custodian, is the same pattern that Chinese courts evaluated and accepted. It remains a candidate architecture for enterprise data integrity applications in which traditional attestation methods stand to benefit from cryptographic reinforcement.

The Hangzhou ruling in 2018 was the first time a Chinese court articulated a reasoned framework for accepting blockchain anchored evidence. The Sterlingov ruling six years later applied a different framework to a different category of blockchain data and reached a compatible conclusion.

The doctrine, in two jurisdictions and through different procedural routes, is now sufficient to support commercial reliance on cryptographically anchored provenance. The remaining work is in the service layer.

Sources


Article Credits

Portrait of Michael LeSane
Michael LeSane
Editor