Blockchain Evidence in Court: A Cross-Jurisdictional Study of Admissibility and Weight

Courts across the common-law and civil-law worlds no longer ask whether a blockchain-anchored record is admissible, but how much weight it deserves. This paper surveys the admissibility and probative value of blockchain records and electronic timestamps in more than thirty jurisdictions, drawing on primary law, case law and literature in more than a dozen languages. It sets out the four questions every court asks (admissibility, integrity, time and attribution), the three procedural traditions that shape the answer, and the international instruments that make electronic records admissible, including UNCITRAL's model laws, eIDAS and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2531 on qualified electronic ledgers. It analyses the leading decisions and rules, among them China's Online Litigation Rules, the Tribunal judiciaire de Marseille's 2025 anteriority ruling, OLG Jena on screenshots, the Sterlingov Daubert rulings affirmed by the D.C. Circuit in 2026, and the Supreme Court of India's 2026 order on the hash-value certificate. The paper distinguishes what a ledger proves (existence, integrity and time under the control of a key) from what it does not (authorship, identity and authenticity before anchoring), and compares public, consortium and private ledgers. It concludes with eight technology-neutral design criteria for digital evidence that holds across forums. Disclosure: the authors are co-founders of Bernstein (IP LEVERAGED SAS), which provides blockchain-anchored certification services. No product is named or assessed in the body of the paper. Integrity: the SHA-256 fingerprint of this PDF is anchored to the Bitcoin blockchain and timestamped by qualified and independent timestamping authorities. Certificate and verification instructions: https://www.bernstein.io/research/blockchain-evidence-in-court