Blockchain is considered one of the most secure technologies in the world. In summary, and without going into complex technical details, we can say that a Blockchain network is able to show that what has reached a node, that is, to one of the blockchain members, is just that, and that the rest of the member chain nodes confirm it, thus closing the block chain and ensuring that what is sent is exactly that, given that all nodes confirm it.
There are a wide range of uses for this technology in the real world. We will focus on the use of Blockchain used to demonstrate the existence and content of a file, ie as if it were a document of evidence or as if you went to a notary to make a notarial deposit.
With this clear concept, we can now use this type of record of evidence on intellectual property, trade secrets or any other scenario where an owner must show that something is theirs or has been created by them.
Blockchain used for this type of system requires that the existence of a file can be verified, and for this purpose uses a file hash combined with the use of the selected Blockchain network.
Thus, by using this technology, the owner will be able to show the existence of said file with a specific time and date, and thus show that the contents of said file were theirs at that moment.
If the said file contained a trade secret or an intellectual property right (such as a source code, algorithm, creation, etc.) the owner will be able to show his authorship, in the case of intellectual property rights or the existence of the Trade Secret, in this case.
But is this valid evidence in court?
First, there should be no procedural obstacle to the acceptance of a document verified by a blockchain as evidence. Despite the novelty of this technology, we already have a statement that undoubtedly supports its use as an evidence-based tool.
Before we begin the analysis of statements, laws, and indicators, we must say that we have not yet discovered statements indicating that the evidence submitted by Blockchain has not been approved.
Let us analyze the current events in this type of evidence.
Regarding found sentences:
- Spain: Judgment from the Supreme Court (Criminal Chamber 1st section) no. 326/2019, dated 20 Juneth. This applies to the first sentence that has taken place regarding cryptocurrency, which operates from Blockchain networks, and it is stated in it that: “Article 726 LECRIM provides the Court with a direct assessment of the books, documents and other evidence which may help to clarify the facts. “ That is, the court is obliged to examine all evidence that can contribute evidence to a fact. This has a direct impact on the value that Blockchain technology offers, given that it allows for verification of values, documents and transactions that cannot be destroyed. In this way, the evidentiary effects of criminal acts can be validated.
- China: Sentence (2018) Internet Courts, Zhe 0192 Min Chu No. 81, in the Huatai Yimei case. This concerns a lawsuit filed for infringement of intellectual property rights, in which the plaintiff presents as evidence the hash files and the resulting certification of the said hashes in Blockchain. The court considers the timestamp submitted by Blockchain to be permissible and that the content of the files corresponded to the hash calculation.
Regarding legislation
- Italy: Decree Act no. 135/2018 (art. 8-ter) defines Smart Contract as «a computer program based on DLTs [Distributed Ledger Technologies] and whose execution legally binds two or more parties in accordance with the effects predefined by the said parties. “
- China: The latest reform of the Code of Conduct by Chinadated July 1stst2017, has already included a 5th subsection in its 63rd article that explicitly recognizes “electronic data” as a category of evidence approved by courts.
- US: In 2018, the Delaware General Corporation Law included as accepted evidence “one or more electronic networks or databases (including one or more distributed electronic networks or databases)”. In 2016, the state of Vermont approved legislation that said that Blockchain evidence accompanied by written testimony about the content of the transaction was acceptable evidence in court.
In 2018, the state of Arizona approved amendments to the Electronic Transactions Act to include blockchain evidence, smart contracts and digital signatures, and that they “cannot be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability”. That same year, the state of Ohio approved the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, and recognized Blockchain as electronic evidence.
In 2019, the state of Washington approved a law on the validity of the Distributed General Ledger Text (DLT), which validated Blockchain as evidence and evidence accepted in court.
In 2020, the state of Illinois approved the Blockchain Technology Act, which explicitly states that: “In a lawsuit, evidence of a smart contract, blockchain record, or electronic signature must not be excluded simply because a blockchain was used to create, store, or verify the smart one. the contract, post or signature ».
The states of New York and Virginia have drafted laws in the same sense, still pending their approval.
- Argentina: Decree 182/2019. This standard introduces concepts such as “blockchain operation for electronic document storage, smart contract management and other digital services”.
Other indicators
- Spain: In Barcelona, their own courts recommend the use of Blockchain to protect business secrets, and it is they who intend to protect this information using this technology.
The Corporation of Registrars in Spain, including Registration of Property, is implementing Blockchain technology, which will be used to provide greater security and traceability of notices. This shows that institutions and public agencies are also interested in their application.
Another clear indicator of what is happening in Spain is the constant regulation of cryptocurrency, which is increasingly being incorporated into other legislation such as the prevention of money laundering.
- France: French magistrates recommend the use of Blockchain in order to show the existence of design when lawsuits are filed for infringement of unregistered designs.
- Azerbaijan: The ministry uses Blockchain evidence for more than 30 electronic services and has implemented more than 15 official registrations, including an electronic notary public and court.
- Great Britain: A pilot project has been under development since 2018. The initiative was announced by the Justice Service with the Magistrates’ Court to determine whether DLT technology can be used to simplify legal proceedings, with a focus on providing greater security for digital evidence.
All these indicators, laws and statements lead us to the conclusion that there is currently no argument pointing out that the evidence submitted using this system will not be valid, but rather that all this information tells us that all evidence that is sent in. in any court will be admitted, provided we are able to give it the necessary probative value it requires.
