Electronic evidence from blockchain systems during martial law: the problem of admissibility
The issue of admissibility of evidence in modern legal doctrine is difficult to overestimate, because it is this category of criminal proceedings that is one of the guarantees of its legality. At the same time, each of the possible types of evidence in criminal proceedings contains a system of its own characteristics and features that are related to its admissibility. This also applies to blockchain systems. It is worth noting that as of today, when martial law is in effect in Ukraine, the situation with the proper conduct of criminal proceedings has become somewhat more complicated. Within the framework of this work, the issue of understanding blockchain systems, their advantages and disadvantages was highlighted. According to the author’s algorithm, a study was conducted and the belonging of blockchain systems to electronic evidence was argued. This algorithm included the isolation of the characteristics of electronic evidence mentioned in the scientific literature and their comparison with the characteristics of blockchain systems. As a result, it was stated that blockchain systems belong to electronic evidence. The following should also be distinguished. In cases where blockchain is involved, the blockchain itself is a source of evidence, and cryptocurrency is actually evidence, because cryptocurrency is a digital asset, exists thanks to blockchain technology, is recorded in the form of transactions in the blockchain, and does not exist outside the corresponding blockchain network. The publication also prepared an overview and a substantive description of the most common investigative actions, as a result of which it is possible to obtain a blockchain system as a source of evidence: inspection (Article 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine), temporary access to things and documents (Articles 159-166 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine), search (Article 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine), interrogation (Article 224 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine), conducting an examination (Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine), removal of information from electronic information systems (Article 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine), control over the commission of a crime (Article 271 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine), audio and video surveillance of a person (Article 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine). In general, the peculiarity of the admissibility of blockchain systems as a source of evidence during martial law is associated with such objective circumstances as military operations that cause disruptions in the operation of electronic networks, the lack of stable access to the Internet, and the limited ability to attract specialists and experts in the field of digital technologies. This, in turn, complicates the proper recording of blockchain data, verification of their authenticity, and documentation of the evidence collection process. Further scientific research is required on the role and significance of blockchain systems as evidence, as well as the issues of their admissibility in civil, administrative, and commercial proceedings.
Read more