区块链电子存证是电子取证领域新技术路线，市场在2020年高速发展，表现为：（一）区块链电子存证的使用者从著作权领域，开始向网络购物行业、在线金融行业以及其他民生领域拓展；（二）区块链电子取证场景丰富，包括线上取证（微信、小程序、网站、网盘、电商、直播等），线下取证（门店、办公场所、娱乐景区）；（三）实体法院对区块链电子证据的接受、采信程度提高，区块链证据在河南、四川、贵州、内蒙等中西内陆地区法院判例中增多。
The electronic recording of block chains is a new technological route in the field of electronic forensics, and the market developed rapidly in 2020, as follows: (i) users of the electronic recording of block chains began to expand from the area of copyright to the Internet shopping industry, the online financial industry and other areas of livelihood; (ii) the digital evidence collection scenes of block chains were rich, including online forensics (micro-credit, small programs, web sites, diskettes, electric dealers, live broadcasts, etc.), offline forensics (doors, office space, entertainment areas); and (iii) the acceptance of electronic evidence of block chains by entity courts and their increased confidence in the jurisprudence of the western and central district courts of Henan, Sichuan, Guizhou, Nemon, etc.
2021年1月29日，最高院《关于人民法院在线办理案件若干问题的规定》（征求意见稿），多次提及“区块链存证证据效力、审核规则、上链前数据真实性审查、区块链证据补强认定”。区块链技术降低取证成本、提升效率使传统取证方式升级，未来3-5年将持续保持高速发展。作为市场的参与者，北京中海义信信息技术有限公司总结2020年区块链电子存证典型判例如下文。
On 29 January 2021, the Supreme Court, in its Regulation on Certain Questions Concerning the Online Handling of Cases by the People's Courts (Application Draft), referred on several occasions to “the validity of evidence in the chain of blocks, the rules of review, the examination of the authenticity of data before the chain, and the strengthening of evidence in the chain of blocks.” Block chain technology reduced the cost of obtaining evidence, increased efficiency led to the upgrading of traditional methods of evidence, and continued to develop at a high pace over the next three to five years. As a market participant, China Haiishin Information Technology Ltd., Beijing summarized the typical case of electronic record in the chain of blocks in 2020, as follows.
案例一：上海轻享互联网科技有限公司与宋某买卖合同纠纷
Case I: Shanghai Lighten Internet Technology Co. Ltd. in dispute with Song's purchase and purchase contract
标签：最高院司法联盟链/网络购物纠纷/数据存证/电子合同存证
案情及判决：宋某在支付宝某小程序上租用一台电视机，通过电子签约方式在小程序上与租赁平台签订合同。原、被告缔约、履约等过程均已通过人民法院司法区块链平台存证。宋某未按约支付租金，故租赁平台起诉至法院要求宋某按合同约定支付买断款并承担相应违约责任。
case and sentence: Song rented a television set on a sub-procedure for payment of the treasure and contracted the leased platform in a sub-procedure by means of an electronic contract. The original, the defendant's contract, the performance, etc. have been documented through the People's Court's judicial block chain platform.
上海普陀法院一审判决，平台方提交的运用区块链方式存证的电子数据，是合同签约、履约过程中生成的交易信息及数据，且同步存储于司法区块链平台，应当认为其属于证据形式中的电子数据。通过对司法区块链平台的可靠性、平台验证结果的可靠性及运用验证结果认定事实的确认性等三个方面分析论证，法院认可涉案区块链证据的真实性，并根据区块链证据与平台保存的其他电子数据证据文本和截图内容相互印证的事实，认定该证据足以证明平台方主张的事实，对平台方的诉讼请求予以支持。
In the first instance, the Shanghai Putu Court ruled that the electronic data submitted by the platform party using the block chain to document transactions and data generated during the contract, the performance process and stored simultaneously in the judicial block chain platform should be considered as electronic data in the form of evidence. Through an analysis of the reliability of the judicial block chain platform, the reliability of the results of the validation of the platform and the confirmation of the facts using the results of the validation, the court accepted the authenticity of the evidence in the block chain in question and, on the basis of the fact that the block chain evidence and the content of the other electronic data evidence contained in the platform were cross-substantiated, found that the evidence was sufficient to substantiate the facts claimed by the platform and supported the platform party’s claim.
区块链证据在线验证
庭审中，原告对存证数据进行核验操作演示，操作步骤如下：
During the trial, the plaintiff performed a demonstration of the validation of the recorded data, which was carried out as follows:
1）打开 “司法区块链平台”页面，展示其 ICP备案号；
1) Opening of the “Judicial Block Chain Platform” page and displaying its ICC filing number;
2）选择“司法链数据核验”选项，进入电子证据核验界面；
2) Select the option of “Judicial chain data verification” and enter the electronic evidence verification interface;
3）打开电子证据包，展示上链文件：合同信息存证、订单信息存证、第一期租金存证、物流信息存证，分别对应了不同的存证时间、存证内容及统一证据编号；
3) Opening of e-evidence kits and displaying upper-chain documents: record of contract information, order information, first-stage rental, logistics information, which corresponds to different filing times, record contents and uniform evidentiary numbers, respectively;
4）在核验界面的存证类型选择“文本”，将统一证据编号及存证内容输入核验页面；
4) Select " Text " in the certificate type of the verification interface, which will integrate the evidence number and the contents of the certificate into the verification page;
5）核验结果显示“核验通过，数据未被篡改”；
5) the results of the verification results are “verification passed and the data has not been tampered with”;
6）经比对，电子证据包中存证内容与原告提供证据所载信息一致。
(6) The evidence contained in the electronic evidence package is, mutatis mutandis, consistent with the information contained in the evidence provided by the plaintiff.
案例二：新东方讯程网络科技公司与王某侵害作品信息网络传播权纠纷
Case II: a dispute between the New Orient Communications Network, Science and Technology Inc. and Wang over the right to disseminate information about works
标签：北京互联网法院天平链/权证链/在线课程维权/录频取证/电商平台取证
tag: Beijing Internet Court Sky Chain/Certificate Chain/Online Course Advocacy/Video Evidence/Mechanism Platform Evidence
案情及判决：新东方讯程科技公司委托上海衍舜商务咨询中心、韩悦娇创作在线网络课程，发现被告王某经营的淘宝店铺“雅思小语种小铺”向公众传播涉案作品，侵害对该课程享有的信息网络传播权。
case and sentence: New Orient Science & Technology commissioned the Shanghai Sunn Business Advisory Centre and Han Yoo-yung Online Network Course, which found that the “Assi Little Language” shop run by the defendant Wang had disseminated the works to the public, thereby violating the right to information network dissemination of the course.
法院判决：北京互联网法院一审判决被告未经原告许可，在其经营的淘宝店铺雅思小语种小铺销售涉案课程的授课视频，并通过百度网盘发送，使得他人能在其选定的时间和地点获得该授课视频，侵犯原告就该录像制品享有的信息网络传播权，依法应当承担停止侵权、赔偿损失1580元。
The
区块链取证：新东方通过权证链电子存证平台对被告侵权行为进行电子存证并提交了存证证书、存证视频、取证技术说明与存证服务协议。根据存证视频显示：登录淘宝网及阿里旺旺，在淘宝网“宝贝”中搜索“新东方雅思课程”，所得页面显示商品名称为“新东方雅思课程”，价格为69元，右侧显示店铺名称为“雅思小语种小铺”，掌柜昵称为“234wj87846***”。通过阿里旺旺与该店铺掌柜进行聊天，询问是否是正版课程，其回复”课程和网上的正版课程是一样的”、“和原版是一样的”，询问其购买后如何获取视频，其回复称通过百度网盘传输。点击购买，实际付款69元。再次通过阿里旺旺联系店铺掌柜，其提供百度网盘ID”1783207****“。登录百度网盘后添加其为好友，其发送文件“19版新东方”、“知心雅思”等文件，内有文件夹“雅思听力课程（讲师韩悦娇），打开该文件夹，共有14个视频及雅思7分听力讲义PDF文件。原告提交涉案课程侵权比对清单，两套课程内容大体相同，只是录制时间不同。
原告提交涉案课程在淘宝上销售页面截图，显示店铺为“雅思小语种小铺”，销售商品为“新东方雅思课程”，价格为69元，该店铺掌柜为“234wj87846***”，原告提交淘宝网披露的被告信息短信及邮件，i显示D“234wj87846***”的真实姓名为“王*”，身份证号与住所与被告一致。原告通过权证链电子存证平台对查询该邮件的过程进行电子存证并提交录屏文件及存证证书。本案电子数据同步存储于北京互联网法院天平链。 The plaintiff submitted a pageshot of the course's sales on the treasures, showing the shop as a “Yash's small-language shop”, selling the merchandise as a “New Orient's” course at a price of $69, with the shop holding “234wj87846/***”, and the plaintiff submitted a text message and mail from the defendant, which revealed that the real name of D”234wj87846/*** was “King*” and that the identity card number was identical to the defendant's home. The plaintiff electronically recorded the search for the mail through the electronic record-keeping platform of the chain of rights and submitted the video document and the certificate of record. 案例三：爱奇艺科技公司与某酒店侵害作品信息网络传播权纠纷 Case III: a dispute between Aichi Arts and Technology and a hotel that infringes the right to disseminate information about a work network 标签：北京互联网法院天平链/权证链/影视维权/录像存证/酒店取证 tag: Beijing Internet Court SkyLink/List of Rights/Video Defense/Video Recording/Hotel Evidence 案情及判决：爱奇艺公司拥有电影《xx》独家信息网络传播权，某酒店未经爱奇艺公司许可在客房内通过局域网链接电视提供上述影片的在线播放服务，爱奇艺提起xx万元经济赔偿诉求。双方分别进行举证，酒店公司使用权证链取证客房电视后台播放记录。法院判决：原告未举证证明其遭受的实际损失或被告的违法所得，故本院综合考虑因素，酌情确定经济损失金额，酒店公司赔偿爱奇艺科技有限公司经济损失X万元。 case and judgement: Aichit Corporation has exclusive rights of dissemination of the film 'x'exclusive information network, and a hotel provides online broadcasting of the above-mentioned films in its guest room via local area network link television without permission from Aichit Inc., which brings a claim for economic compensation in the amount of xx million yuan. Each of the parties will testify separately and the hotel company will use the chain of title to take evidence on the recording of the television backstage of the guest's room. The court ruled that the plaintiff had failed to prove the actual damage suffered or the defendant's unlawful gains, so the court, taking into account the sum of the financial loss, as appropriate, and the hotel company will pay compensation for the economic loss in the amount of X thousand yuan to Aichit Science and Technology Ltd. 爱奇艺公证取证：公证员办理入住酒店，开具了住宿费发票。在公证员监督下代理人使用房间内电视机搜索《XX》影片，并进行取证，主张公证费支出了XXXX元。 酒店公司区块链取证：该酒店公司对酒店管理系统的后台数据进行取证，采用权证链录像功能对涉案作品的服务器后台播放次数进行证据固定，本案电子数据同步存储于北京互联网法院天平链。 The 案例四：北京全景视觉网络科技公司与贵阳某房地产开发公司侵害作品信息网络传播权纠纷 Case IV: A dispute between Beijing Panorama Visual Network Technology and Guiyang Real Estate Development Corporation over infringement of the right to disseminate information about their work network 标签：广州互联网法院司法联盟链 / 易保全/ 图片维权/ 微信公众号 案情及判决：北京全景视觉网络科技发现涉案公众号文章非授权使用其版权图片，账号主体为房地产公司。经比对，文章中使用的图片与原告主张权利的图片一致。法院判决：贵州省高级人民法院一审判决地产公司向全景视觉赔偿经济损失及为制止侵权的合理开支1200元。 case and sentence: Beijing Panorama Technology found that the copyrighted picture of the article in question was not authorized to be used, and the account number was a real estate company. By contrast, the picture used in the article was consistent with the plaintiff's claim to rights. The court ruled that the High People's Court of Guizhou decided in first instance that the real estate company should compensate the landscape for economic losses and reasonable expenses of $1,200 to stop the violation. 区块链取证：全景视觉就微信公众号文章向易保全公司申请电子数据证据保全， 易保全出具电子数据取证证书。一审法院当庭使用电脑登陆易保全官方网站对涉案电子数据取证证书的内容进行核验：输入证书号码，对与该证书对应的电子数据进行提取。经比对，存储在易保全网站上电子数据内容与原告提交的证据一致，本案电子数据同步存储于广州互联网法院。 The court of first instance uses computer access to the official website to verify the content of the electronic data evidence certificate in question: enter the certificate number and extract the electronic data corresponding to the certificate. By contrast, the electronic data content stored on the electronic security website is consistent with the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, and the electronic data in this case is stored simultaneously in the Guangzhou Internet Court. 案例五：杭州银行合肥分行与霍某金融借款合同纠纷 Case V: a dispute between the Hangzhou Bank Compost branch and Hawthau on a financial borrowing contract 标签：杭州互联网法院司法联盟链/保全网/在线金融纠纷/数据存证/电子合同存证 案情及判决：霍某通过杭州银行手机银行与其签订《杭州银行股份有限公司借款合同》，杭州银行对签约流程中产生的合同、文件进行区块链存证；霍某未按合同约定按时归还原告贷款利息，向法院提起诉讼。法院判决：对原告提交的证据，法院予以确认，合肥市蜀山区人民法院一审判决霍某应偿还借款本金117000元并支付利息。 区块链存证：杭州银行提交了线上借款文件、登录信息、区块链存证证据，庭审中演示“在网址为××及ｈｔｔｐ：／／ｅｘｐｌｏｒｅｒ。ｂａｏｑｕａｎ。ｃｏｍ／ｂｒｏｗｓｅｒ／“用区块链技术验证存证材料真实性。存证数据包括：1、借款合同；2、杭州银行个人客户数字证书申请及保管授权书、普惠签约凭证；被告登陆杭州银行手机银行与原告签约借款合同的事实等。 block chain certificates: Hangbank submitted online loan documents, log-in information, block chain evidence, which were shown in court as “The web site is × and http://explorer.baoquan.com/browser/“The authenticity of the certificate of evidence using block chain technology. The documentation data include: 1; the loan contract; 2; the application for and custody of the personal customer certificate of Hangzhou Bank; the certificate of general agreement; and the fact that the defendant entered into a loan contract with Hangzhou Bank's mobile phone bank. 案例六：经济科学出版社与某教育公司等侵害作品发行权纠纷 Case No. 6: A dispute between the Press of Economic Science and an educational company, etc. regarding infringement of the right to issue works 标签：ｌｅｇａｌＸｃｈａｉｎ/IP360 /录屏取证/ 微信聊天记录 tag: legalXchain/IP360/ ScreenScreen/ Micromail Chat Record 案情及判决：经济科学出版社发现教育科技公司向学员赠送其享有版权的《经济法基础》盗版图书，并通过培训老师的微信在朋友圈中单独销售涉案教材的盗版图书。经济科学出版社通过公证处、时间戳、区块链等途径进行取证。教育科技公司认为涉案赠送教材是员工的个人行为，无需承担侵权责任。法官判决：廊坊市中级人民法院一审判决，采信原告提交证据，员工朱某收取定金及赠送教材的行为应当认定为职务行为，教育公司应承担停止侵权并赔偿损失1万元，支持取证费175元（报名定金150元+时间戳取证费15元、录屏费10元）、公证费1500元。 公证取证：在公证员的监督下，报名课程并缴纳定金，获得被告赠送的教材。经比对鉴定，被告赠送的图书系盗版图书； notarized evidence: , under the supervision of the notary, enrols in courses and pays a down payment and receives teaching materials from the defendant. 时间戳取证：通过时间戳固定教育公司公众号文章； Time stamp evidence: by punctuating the public article of the fixed education company; 区块链存证：固定与被告工作人员微信聊天记录，内容为被告通过其工作人员的微信销售涉案教材的盗版图书。 block chain: fixed video of a chat with the defendant's staff on the sale of pirated books of the educational material in question through their staff's micro-letters. 案例七：梁某等与张艺兴网络侵权责任纠纷 标签：ｌｅｇａｌＸｃｈａｉｎ/IP360/明星维权/录屏取证/微博取证 tag: legalXchain/IP360/star rights/screen evidence/ microblogging evidence 案情及判决：梁某在“新浪微博”平台中持续以明指或通过侮辱之义的绰号或表情符号暗指的方式发布针对张艺兴侮辱、诽谤言论。明星张艺兴将梁某、微梦公司诉至法院。其后，梁某开通“打赏”的方式吸纳社会公众资金。北京互联网法院一审判决梁某公开赔礼道歉，赔偿张艺兴精神损害抚慰金及维权成本113000元及收缴打赏金。梁某向北京市第四中级人民法院提起上诉，二审法院 “驳回上诉、维持原判”。 区块链取证：张艺兴主张梁某在涉案新浪微博发布的27条博文侵犯其名誉权，公开对其进行侮辱、诽谤。梁某认可发布了涉案博文。张艺兴提交的调查回函、IP360取证数据保全证书、取证视频及截图、取证费发票3000元，法官对取证费用予以支持。 section chain of evidence: Jang > argues that Leung has violated his right to honour and publicly insulted and defamed 27 tweets published in the context of Sina Weibo. Liang agrees to publish the tweets in question. Zhang Xing submitted a reply to the investigation, an IP360 certificate of data preservation, a video and a screenshot of the evidence, and an invoice for the evidentiary fee in the amount of $3,000, which the judge supports for the cost of the evidence. 案例八：上海冠生园有限公司与河南某食品公司侵害商标权纠纷 Case VIII: dispute over infringement of trademark rights by a food company in Henan 标签： ｌｅｇａｌＸｃｈａｉｎ/北京方正公证处区块链取证平台/商标权纠纷/录像取证/电商平台取证 tag: legalXchain/Beijing Justice Department block chain evidence platform/Market Rights dispute/Video evidence/Mechanical platform evidence 案情及判决：上海冠生园拥有第30类202241号 “大白兔”驰名商标；河南某食品公司被控侵权标识使用在第30类的糕点上，且在实体店和网络店铺进行销售，让公众误认为被诉侵权商品来源于冠生园公司，故被诉侵权商品系侵犯202241号商标专用权的商品。 case and judgement: Shanghai Crown Garden has a 30th class of trademark No. 202241, the Great White Rabbit; a food company in Henan is accused of violating the label on a 30th class bakery and selling it in real and network shops, leading the public to mistakenly believe that the substance of the infringement was derived from the Crown Garden Company, and is therefore a commodity violating the exclusive rights of trademark No. 202241. 法院判决：湖南省长沙市中级人民法院二审维持原判，河南食品公司停止生产、销售侵犯原告冠生园食品商标专用权的白兔卷，且赔偿经济损失250000元。 The 证据保全：案涉商品不断下架，冠生园向一审法院申请证据保全。保全经过：对食品公司网店上的销售行为通过 “北京市方正公证处区块链取证平台”进行了上链存证（ｌｅｇａｌＸｃｈａｉｎ）。方正公证处出具数据保全证据证书，证书上载明“本证书由司法联盟链ｌｅｇａｌＸｃｈａｉｎ区块链系统签发，证明文件（电子数据）自申请时间起已经存在且内容保持完整，未被篡改。”点击取证内容，通过直接观看该取证ＭＰ4内容，可分别查看到淘宝大腿零食店、拼多多ＡＰＰ上有多店售卖涉案小曲家白兔卷。经验证，涉案证据自上链存证后，没有被篡改过。 案例九：东莞市糖酒集团美宜佳便利店与东莞某日用品店侵害商标权纠纷 Case 9: A dispute over the infringement of trademark rights at a day's convenience store in East China City's Sugar and Wine Group 标签：蚂蚁区块链 / 风语者科技/商标权纠纷/录像取证/门店取证 案情及判决：美宜佳公司是第5585**号、第1357**号注册商标的权利人，某日用品店招牌及灯箱曾用的标识与美宜佳公司的前述注册商标易使相关公众混淆。美宜佳公司故诉其侵犯商标专用权。法院判决：东莞市中级人民法院二审判决，调整一审赔偿金额，日用品店赔偿美宜佳公司经济损失由27000元降低至12000元。 case and sentence: Miseja is the owner of the registered trademarks Nos. 5585** and 1357**, and the markings used in the sign and light box of one day’s stores and the previously registered trademarks of Mieja are confusing the public concerned. Mieja sued her for infringement of the exclusive rights of the trademarks. The court ruled that the Intermediate People’s Court of Dong Ying City had decided in its second instance to adjust the amount of the first-instance compensation, and that the daily supply shop had reduced the economic loss of Mieja from $27,000 to $12,000. 美宜佳公司公证处取证：委托公证员对日用品店内部情况、门口及周边状况进行了拍照，出具公证书。煜欣日用品店确认，该公证书记载的取证地点是其经营场所。该公证书所附照片显示了煜欣日用品店的招牌及灯箱。 日用品店区块链取证：日用品店提交电子数据存证证明书由风语者科技（北京）公司出具。内容为：日用品店使用手机号码137*****979登录“移动公证”电子取证系统，调用软件内的“录像取证”功能模块采集证据文件；视频文件由“移动公证”电子取证系统实时生成；“移动公证”通过支付宝蚂蚁区块链技术确保任何单位或个人（包括用户）不能对上述录像内容进行任何编辑、篡改处理等。证据视频内的人员称煜欣日用品店拆除了招牌及撤销所有关于“M”的标识。前述证据可以证实煜欣日用品店至迟于2019年11月26日拆除了被控侵权标识。 Supply Shop Block Chain Obtaining Evidence: Supply Shop Submission of Electronic Data Recording Certificates by Windman Science (Beijing) Inc. For example: The Supply Shop uses mobile phone number 137*****979 to access the mobile notarized electronic forensics system by calling the “Video Evidence” functional module of the software to collect evidentiary documents; The Video Document is generated in real time by the “Moveed Notar” Electronic Evidence System; The Mobile Notary ensures that no unit or individual, including the user, can edit or alter the content of the video. 案例十：上海经闻文化公司与某网络公司侵害作品信息网络传播权纠纷 Case 10: a dispute between Shanghai Illustrative Cultural Corporation and a network company over infringement of the right to disseminate information about works 标签：原本链 /七印公司 /文字作品侵权/网站取证 tag: original chain / 7 printing companies / text-writing torts / website evidence 案情及判决：经闻公司独家运营管理《每日经济新闻》报纸旗下的“每经网”，经调查发现，某网络公司未经许可，在其运营的商业网站XX上转载涉案文章，侵犯了经闻公司的信息网络传播权。经闻公司通过区块链技术平台进行证据保全。法院判决：上海市徐汇区人民法院一审判决，网络公司未经许可，通过其运营的涉案网站传播涉案文章，使相关公众可以在个人选定的时间和地点获得该作品，侵害了经闻公司对涉案文章享有的信息网络传播权，赔偿其经济损失1,600元及合理费1,000元。 区块链取证：网联公司通过上海七印信息科技公司使用时间戳、区块链（原本链）对涉案网站进行取证存证，显示该网站于2019年2月19日转载了一篇名为《降价近千万？北京豪宅市场打响“春季抢收战”》的文章。经比对，该文章的内容与涉案文章基本相同。
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
发表评论