en

Scientific Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs

  • Home
  • Vol. 31, No. 3, 2026

  • Materials and conclusions of a blockchain systems analyst: Issues of admissibility and the application of law in criminal proceedings

  • Received 04.06.2026,
  • Revised 05.09.2026,
  • Accepted 29.09.2026
  • Published 02.10.2026
Download article Download article
Vol. 31, No. 3, 2026
  • criminal proceedings; digital evidence; evidential information; procedural assessment; virtual assets
  • https://doi.org/10.63341/naia-herald/3.2026.42
  • Pages 42-58

This study aimed to substantiate the legal nature of the materials and conclusions of a blockchain systems analyst, establish criteria for their procedural assessment, and synthesise approaches to use in criminal proceedings. The methodological design combined a review of scholarly literature with formal legal and comparative legal methods, case-law analysis, and conceptual modelling. The study substantiates the legal nature of materials and conclusions prepared by a blockchain systems analyst as independent results of applying specialised knowledge, generated through the professional analytical processing of distributed-ledger data. Distinctions between the analyst’s materials and conclusions were identified in terms of their legal nature, content, functional purpose, and role in the evidential process; both were also differentiated from a forensic expert’s opinion and a specialist’s consultation. It was established that the procedural assessment of an analyst’s materials and conclusions should be based on the classical criteria of relevance, admissibility, and reliability, taking account of the particularities of their formation rather than the technical characteristics of blockchain technology. Relevance is determined by the connection between the results of blockchain analysis and the facts to be proved; admissibility, by the lawfulness of obtaining the source data, the transparency of the analytical methodology, and the possibility of its independent verification; and reliability, by the reproducibility of results, the verifiability of heuristic models, algorithmic transparency, and the scientific soundness of the conclusions drawn. A conceptual model for the comprehensive procedural assessment of a blockchain systems analyst’s materials and conclusions was developed. It comprises three interrelated stages: assessment of the source of evidential information, assessment of the blockchain-analysis methodology, and assessment of the results of analytical activity. The findings may be used by investigators, prosecutors, defence counsel, forensic experts, and blockchain systems analysts when assessing blockchain-analysis materials, determining their evidential value, and ensuring consistent approaches to the use of such evidential information in criminal proceedings

References

  1. Albright, T.D. (2023). A scientist’s take on scientific evidence in the courtroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 120(41), article number e2301839120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2301839120.
  2. Alyas, T., Abbas, Q., Niazi, S., Alqahtany, S.S., Alghamdi, T., Alzahrani, A., Tabassum, N., & Ibrahim, A.M. (2025). Multi blockchain architecture for judicial case management using smart contracts. Scientific Reports, 15, article number 8471. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-92842-8.
  3. Ardian, R.E., Rozi, F., & Soetikno, N. (2025). The implementation of blockchain technology in the criminal justice system: Opportunities, challenges, and its implications for transparency and accountability. Hakim: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Sosial, 3(2), 1207-1220. doi: 10.51903/ndjn0n19.
  4. Atlam, H.F., Ekuri, N., Azad, M.A., & Lallie, H.S. (2024). Blockchain forensics: A systematic literature review of techniques, applications, challenges, and future directions. Electronics, 13(17), article number 3568. doi: 10.3390/electronics13173568.
  5. Ayub, A.M., Syed, F.R., & Peng, H. (2025). Breaking barriers: The admissibility of forensic evidence in US courts and the struggles with cutting-edge science. Science & Justice, 65(6), article number 101355. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2025.101355.
  6. Casino, F., Dasaklis, T.K., Spathoulas, G.P., Anagnostopoulos, M., Ghosal, A., Böröcz, I., Solanas, A., Conti, M., & Patsakis, C. (2022). Research trends, challenges, and emerging topics in digital forensics: A review of reviews. IEEE Access, 10, 25464-25493. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2108.04634.
  7. Chen, S., Rajamanickam, R., & Manap, N.A. (2024). Legal framework for authenticity of blockchain electronic evidence in China: Under a comparative law perspective. Hasanuddin Law Review, 10(3), 272-291. doi: 10.20956/halrev.v10i3.5638.
  8. Dudani, S., Baggili, I., Raymond, D., & Marchany, R. (2023). The current state of cryptocurrency forensics. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 46, article number 301576. doi: 10.1016/j.fsidi.2023.301576.
  9. Fahmideh, M., et al. (2023). Engineering blockchain-based software systems: Foundations, survey, and future directions. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(6), article number 110. doi: 10.1145/3530813.
  10. Financial Action Task Force. (2021). Updated guidance for a risk-based approach to virtual assets and virtual asset service providers. Retrieved from https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfrecommendations/Guidance-rba-virtual-assets-2021.html.
  11. Fröwis, M., Gottschalk, T., Haslhofer, B., Rückert, C., & Pesch, P. (2020). Safeguarding the evidential value of forensic cryptocurrency investigations. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 33, article number 200902. doi: 10.1016/j.fsidi.2019.200902.
  12. Haji, I.A., Mohammed, S.D., & Mousa, K.M. (2026). Blockchain based chain of custody and digital evidence legality in post conflict prosecutions. Frontiers in Blockchain, 9, article number 1801364. doi: 10.3389/fbloc.2026.1801364.
  13. Harris, M. (2023). Blockchain-based evidence in courts: Standards, reliability, and admissibility challenges. Legal Studies in Digital Age, 2(3), 49-63.
  14. Kaya, S., Kurt Konca, N., & Kıyak, E. (2026). The evidentiary value of blockchain in civil litigation: Comparative insights and future directions. Frontiers in Blockchain, 9, article number 1783805. doi: 10.3389/fbloc.2026.1783805.
  15. Krishna, A.Y., & Kumar Chaudhary, N. (2026). Enhancing evidence integrity and trust in the criminal justice system: A design and evaluation of the blockchain enabled evidence securing and tracking (BEST) application. IETE Journal of Research, 72(5-6), 1099-1108. doi: 10.1080/03772063.2026.2617871.
  16. Lavín, I., & Llanos, D.R. (2026). An analysis of blockchain solutions for digital evidence chain of custody. In R. Pastor-Vargas, A. Carrera, B. Molnár, Ó. Lage, J. Prieto, A. Nongaillard (Eds.), Blockchain and Applications, 7th International Congress (pp. 221-231). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-032-05877-5_21.
  17. Martynenko, K.V. (2026). Organization of the investigation of criminal offenses related to the use of virtual assets: Problems and the current state of scientific research. Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence, 3(2), 138-147. doi: 10.24144/2788-6018.2026.02.3.19.
  18. Metelev, O.P. (2025). Legal nature and current issues of evaluating virtual assets (crypto-assets) as evidence in criminal proceedings. Herald of Criminal Justice, 3-4, 52-68. doi: 10.59835/2413-5372.2025.3-4/52-68.
  19. Mollajafari, S., & Bechkoum, K. (2023). Blockchain technology and related security risks: Towards a seven-layer perspective and taxonomy. Sustainability, 15(18), article number 13401. doi: 10.3390/su151813401.
  20. Musbih, O.A. (2026). The evidentiary value of blockchain records in the criminal justice system: A comparative analytical study. International Review of Law, 15(1), 37-64. doi: 10.29117/irl.2026.0361.
  21. Nujumudeen, F., Mubarak, D.M., Hussain, T., & Pinjala, P.K. (2026). Adaptive blockchain framework for reliable authentication and preservation of digital forensic evidence. Discover Computing, 29, article number 158. doi: 10.1007/s10791-026-10034-y.
  22. Oliinyk, O., Farynyk, V., Vozniuk, A., Volobuieva, O., & Beryslavska, O. (2020). The principles of criminal law in the aspect of protection of constitutional rights of citizens. Amazonia Investiga, 9(27), 445-459. doi: 10.34069/AI/2020.27.03.49.
  23. Olukoya, O. (2021). Distilling blockchain requirements for digital investigation platforms. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 62, article number 102969. doi: 10.1016/j.jisa.2021.102969.
  24. Ovsianiuk, D., Okushko, A., & Panchenko, Ye. (2025a). Application of AI to detect anomalous transactions as a new direction in combating money laundering. Law Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs, 15(4), 75-87. doi: 10.63341/naia-chasopis/4.2025.75.
  25. Ovsianiuk, D., Okushko, A., & Panchenko, Ye. (2025b). Methodology of detection and forensic features of investigation of crimes involving virtual assets: A comparative analysis of international practices. Scientific Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs, 30(2), 119-137. doi: 10.63341/naia-herald/2.2025.119.
  26. Park, Y., & Jeong, D. (2026). A blockchain-based digital evidence management system: Integrating forensic procedures and multi-party authorization. Information Processing & Management, 63(5), article number 104654. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2026.104654.
  27. Pasupuleti, M.K. (2024). AI and blockchain in law: Shaping the future of legal practice. In Legal Tech and the Future of Law: Transforming Legal Practices with AI and Blockchain (pp. 307-325). London: National Education Services. doi: 10.62311/nesx/46649.
  28. Pérez, C., López, I., & López, F. (2025). Blockchain-based evidence and legal validity: Reformulating norms for decentralized justice systems. Rechtsnormen Journal of Law, 3(2), 180-189. doi: 10.70177/rjl.v3i2.2215.
  29. Romaniuk, V.V., & Ablamskyi, S.Ye. (2024). Criteria for the admissibility of digital (electronic) evidence in criminal proceedings. Law and Safety, 93(2), 140-150. doi: 10.32631/pb.2024.2.13.
  30. Shevchuk, V.M. (2026). The use of blockchain technology as an innovative component of criminalistic support for law enforcement activities in war conditions. Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law, 5(93), 241-251. doi: 10.24144/2307-3322.2026.93.5.30.
  31. Shinde, S.M., & Gurrala, V.R. (2023). Preserving integrity of evidence with blockchain technology in cloud forensics for immigration management. Journal of Telecommunications and Information Technology, 91(1), 78-87. doi: 10.26636/jtit.2023.164522.
  32. Starenkyi, O.S. (2026). The use of virtual assets in criminal procedural proof: Problems of legal certainty and admissibility criteria. Herald of Criminal Justice, 1, 247-273. doi: 10.59835/2413-5372.2026.1/247-273.
  33. Su, Z. (2025). Evidentiary value and evidentiary status of blockchain evidence. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 29(1), 58-76. doi: 10.1177/13657127241238020.
  34. Tsymbaliuk, A.I. (2025). Legal perspectives on blockchain technologies and smart contracts in the Ukrainian legal system. Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law, 3(90), 426-432. doi: 10.24144/2307-3322.2025.90.3.62.
  35. Vozniuk, A.A., Savchenko, A.V., Tarasevych, T.Y., Dudorov, O.O., & Klymenko, O.A. (2020). Electronic money and payments as means of committing crimes. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 9(4), 150-159. doi: 10.36941/ajis-2020-0069.
  36. Watters, C. (2023). When criminals abuse the blockchain: Establishing personal jurisdiction in a decentralised environment. Laws, 12(2), article number 33. doi: 10.3390/laws12020033.
  37. Wu, H., & Zheng, G. (2020). Electronic evidence in the blockchain era: New rules on authenticity and integrity. Computer Law & Security Review, 36, article number 105401. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105401.
  38. Xiao, N., Wang, Z., Sun, X., & Miao, J. (2024). A novel blockchain-based digital forensics framework for preserving evidence and enabling investigation in industrial Internet of Things. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 86, 631-643. doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2023.12.021.