Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Applications and Trends of Digital/Electronic Evidence in Chinese Litigation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Electronic Technology and Civil Procedure

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 15))

Abstract

This paper analyzes several recent cases and introduces general regulations governing the collection and the presentation of digital evidence in China. To ensure the integrity, authenticity, and originality of the obtained digital evidence, the collection and examination of digital evidence requires strict compliance of technical protocols. In any litigation related to digital evidence, forensic experts can play a role in cross-examine the forensic expertise. In judging the reliability of digital evidence, however, in addition to the reliability of scientific principles, should we put more emphasis on the reliability of scientific inference? In conclusion, in order to provide for greater application of digital evidence in fact-finding, the following considerations are important: stricter technical protocols and standards should be written into the law in China; general rules in the evidence law should not be ignored but applied to digital evidence with the emphasis of uniqueness and technicality of digital evidence; and, the judge’s discretion carries a very special meaning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Chu Zhang and Likai Liu, “An Email with a Fake Name: Yange Xue v. Nan Zhang for a Fraudulent Email,” in Case Studies on Telecommunication Law, 136–41 (Beijing: Law Press, 2005).

  2. 2.

    Chunyu Zhao and Yunquan Zhang, “Characteristics of Digital Evidence and Their Impacts on Evidence Collection,” in Journal of Heilong Jiang Political Science & Law Management College 1 (2006).

  3. 3.

    See Ronald J. Allen, Richard B. Kuhns and Eleanor Swift, Evidence, Text, Problems, and Cases (Austin: Aspen Law & Business, 2002), 693. [hereinafter Allen et al., Evidence].

  4. 4.

    Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence and International Organization on Digital Evidence: Standards and Principles, in Forensic Science Communication, 2000.

  5. 5.

    Regulations on Examination of Computer Crime Scenes and Digital Evidence, Art. 12.

  6. 6.

    Ibid. Art. 13.

  7. 7.

    Ibid. Art. 14.

  8. 8.

    Ibid. Art. 29.

  9. 9.

    Decisions on the Issues from Management of Forensic Examination, Article 1, Standing Committee of National People’s Congress, 2005.

  10. 10.

    Allen et al., Evidence, supra, note 3, 732–33.

  11. 11.

    Regulations on Examination of Computer Crime Scenes and Digital Evidence. Art. 2.

  12. 12.

    Regulations on Examination of Computer Crime Scenes and Digital Evidence. Art. 41.

  13. 13.

    See Table 3 “Examination Report” (No. 117), 158: “Nonpublic Examination Results of 116 Files from the Plaintiff in the Computer Hard Drive.”

  14. 14.

    Electronic Evidence: Computer-Produced Records in Court Proceedings, Introduction [2], Ken Chasse, Toronto, Ontario, June, 1994.

  15. 15.

    Allen et al., Evidence, supra, note 3, 693.

  16. 16.

    Canada Uniform Electronic Evidence, Act 4.

  17. 17.

    The SPC Judicial Interpretation for the Execution of Criminal Procedural Law (1998) 3 Gazette of the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China 101. Art. 53.

  18. 18.

    Specific Provisions on Evidence in Civil Actions of the SPC (2002) 1 Gazette of the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China 22 [hereinafter PECA]. Art. 22.

  19. 19.

    Specific Provisions on Evidence in Administrative Actions of SPC (2002) 4 Gazette of the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China 132 [hereinafter PEAA].Art. 12.

  20. 20.

    Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed., (West Group, 1999), 383.

  21. 21.

    Canada Uniform Electronic Evidence Act 8.

  22. 22.

    The Chinese Criminal Procedure Law (1996) 2 Gazette of the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China 39. Art. 47.

  23. 23.

    Ibid. Art. 66.

  24. 24.

    See Jiahong He, Brief Evidential Law (Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2007), 185.

  25. 25.

    See PECA, supra note 18, Art. 64. Also see PEAA, supra note 19, Art. 54.

  26. 26.

    See PECA, Ibid., Art. 69. Also see PEAA, Ibid. Art. 71.

  27. 27.

    The Chinese Civil Procedural Law (1991) 2 Gazette of the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China 3. Art. 69.

  28. 28.

    Jun Deng, Nanjiang Zhao, Qichun Zeng, Jin Yang and Zeming Mao, “A Lost Lawsuit for Internet Users with IP Address as Evidence,” Southern Daily, May 27, 2003.

  29. 29.

    See Zeming Yang: Computer As Evidence and Daily Journal Analysis, the Annual Reports from China Internet Society and Computer Network and Information Security at the Annual Urgent Meeting of China’s Computer and Network Security, 2005.

  30. 30.

    Terence Anderson, David Schum and William Twining Analysis of Evidence, 2nd ed., (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 44–5.

  31. 31.

    The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Electronic Commerce: Section 2 of Article 9.

  32. 32.

    Digital Signature Law of PRC. Art. 8.

  33. 33.

    Canada Uniform Electronic Evidence. Act 5.

  34. 34.

    Jiahong He, Research on Digital Evidence Law (Beijing: Law Press, 2002), 158.

  35. 35.

    Xin Lu, Research on Digital Evidence in Civil Proceeding (Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2006), 46.

  36. 36.

    Hua Li, Research on Probative Force of Digital Evidence (Guangzhou: Jinan University Press, 2007), 32.

  37. 37.

    Kevin Mardia, Chris Prosise and Matt Pepe, Emergent Responses and Forensic Examination, trans. Qingqing Wang (Beijing: Qinghua Press, 2004), 167–8.

  38. 38.

    See Feng Gao: Prosecutorial Organization’s Forensic Examination of Electronic Evidence at: http://www.procedurallaw.cn/zjfx/zdwz/200905/t20090508_216810.html [08.05.2009].

  39. 39.

    Ibid.

  40. 40.

    See Jiahong He and Weiping Zhang, Brief Evidential Law (Beijing: Renmin University of China Press, 2007), 8–12.

  41. 41.

     See Chief Justice Xiao Yang, China Intensifies Its Efforts for the Reformation of Evidential System (May 30, 2006) in Xiao Yang, The Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China, at http://big5.gov.cn/gate/big5/www.gov.cn/jrzg/2006-05/30/content_295901.htm [28.05.2009].

  42. 42.

    See e.g. Yuqiang Bi, etc.: Draft for China Evidential Law with Suggestions and Argumentations, 2004; Guangzhong Chen: Expert Draft for PRC Evidential Law (Articles, Interpretations, & Argumentations), 2004; Wei Jiang: China Evidential Law Draft (Proposal) & Legislative Reasoning, 2004.

  43. 43.

    See Baosheng Zhang, Uniform Provisions of Evidence of the People’s Court: Proposal for Judicial Interpretations and Drafting Commentary (Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2008). [hereinafter Zhang: Uniform Provisions of Evidence].

  44. 44.

    Zhang: Uniform Provisions of Evidence, supra note 43. Art. 20.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., Art. 92(2).

  46. 46.

    Canada Uniform Electronic Evidence, Section One of Art. 2.

  47. 47.

    Zhang: Uniform Provisions of Evidence, supra note 43, Art. 94.

  48. 48.

    Ibid. Art. 100.

  49. 49.

    Ibid. Art. 169.

  50. 50.

    Wei Tang, Evidential Law in Civil Proceeding, Article 210, Expert Proposal.

  51. 51.

    Wei Jiang, China Evidence Law Draft (Proposal) & Legislative Reasoning (Beijing: Renmin University of China Press, 2004), 542.

  52. 52.

    Zhang: Uniform Provisions of Evidence, supra note 43, Art. 107.

  53. 53.

    Allen et al., Evidence, supra, note 3, 753–4.

  54. 54.

    See Baosheng Zhang, Evidence (Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2009), 228–9.

  55. 55.

    FRE 1003. ADMISSIBILITY OF DUPLICATES.

  56. 56.

    Bryant v. State, 810 So. 2d 532 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App). [2002].

  57. 57.

    Yinghui Song, “Issues Related to Legislative Improvement of Search and Taking Custody of Digital Evidence,” in Evidential Forum 7 (2004).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Key Laboratory of Evidence Science, China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL), Beijing, China

    Baosheng Zhang

  2. Ministry of Education, Beijing, China

    Baosheng Zhang

  3. China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL), Beijing, China

    Huangxun Chen

Authors
  1. Baosheng Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Huangxun Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Baosheng Zhang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Civil Procedure and Law So, University of Pécs Faculty of Law, 48-as tér 1, Pécs, 7622, Baranya, Hungary

    Miklós Kengyel

  2. Faculty of Law, Department of Civil Procedure and Law So, University of Pécs, 48-as tér 1, Pécs, 7622, Hungary

    Zoltán Nemessányi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zhang, B., Chen, H. (2012). Applications and Trends of Digital/Electronic Evidence in Chinese Litigation. In: Kengyel, M., Nemessányi, Z. (eds) Electronic Technology and Civil Procedure. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 15. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4072-3_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation