The Supreme People's Court (SPC), Supreme People's Procuratorate—the nation's top body of prosecutors—and Ministry of Public Security—the principal police authority—jointly released the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Gathering, Accessing, Review and Determination of Electronic Data in the Handling of Criminal Cases (最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、 公安部关于办理刑事案件收集提取和审查判断电子数据若干问题的规定) (Provisions) on September 9, 2016. They entered into effect on October 1.

Miao highlighted one recent case where an online video platform operator—Shenzhen Qvod Technology Co. Ltd., also known as Kuaibo in Chinese—allegedly circulated copyright-infringing and illegal video clips and content on its website.

“The individuals allegedly responsible were arrested, but prosecutors had a tough time producing all the electronic evidence, and the defense lawyer vehemently challenged all sorts of issues like data integrity, storage and consent,” Miao said.

The Provisions are largely aimed at addressing precisely these issues. Article 5 lists rules for conducting integrity checks on electronic evidence when seizing the original storage medium, backing up and freezing data and extracting data from recordings.

They also provide guidance to local prosecutors on the preservation, legitimacy and admissibility of electronic evidence in court and bring interesting challenges for defense lawyers as well, in terms of whether the rules of integrity are strictly complied with and whether the evidence would hold up.

Prosecutors and investigators are subject to specific guidelines when sending notices to network and internet service providers (ISPs) and obtaining consent from data holders. Also, strict requirements have been put forward with respect to ensuring that witnesses are present and inspection processes are recorded when examining or collecting original data, and that the forensic methods for extracting data meet technical standards.

The Provisions explicitly require ISPs to comply with law enforcement authorities in criminal investigations, such as by supplying raw data from their servers and suspending accounts where electronic transaction or communication records are ordered to be frozen.

Criminal vs. civil cases

“The SPC has issued various guidelines and cases recognizing electronic evidence in civil litigation, but these new rules confirm the authority of the courts, prosecutors and police to request assistance from network operators in criminal proceedings.” said Jerry Fang, a partner at Global Law Office in Shanghai.

But the question is whether this can be translated and adopted in civil disputes.

The 2012 amendments of the PRC Criminal Procedure Law and PRC Civil Procedure Law introduced “electronic data” in the categories of admissible evidence. Their previous revisions were in 1996 and 2008, respectively. (Other listed forms of proof include statements, documentary and physical evidence, audio-visual materials, witness testimonies, expert or forensic opinions and on-site inspection or investigation records.)

The SPC's Interpretation on the Application of the <PRC Civil Procedure Law>, released on January 30, 2015, provided a more specific definition of “electronic data” to be applied in civil cases, to include information generated through e-mail, electronic data exchange, online chat records, blogs and microblogs, short messages, electronic signatures, domain names, etc., or stored on electronic media.

And while these examples aren't legally binding in criminal disputes, they are generally adopted in practice.

Last year's amendment to the PRC Criminal Law displayed a much harsher tone on data protection and brought cybersecurity issues into its fold, but the new Provisions mark the first time that the authorities have taken an official stance on electronic evidence to be used in criminal proceedings.

They cover, as provided in Article 1, a much broader scope than the SPC's Civil Procedure Law interpretation:

• Web pages, blogs, microblogs, social feeds/timelines (such as WeChat Moments), forums (specifically Tieba, a Baidu-run discussion board), and other information stored on network disks or released on platforms
• Information communicated via SMS, e-mail, instant messaging, group communications and other network applications and services
• User registration and authentication information, electronic transaction and communication records and sign-in/login logs
• Documents, images, audio and video, digital certificates, computer programs and software and other electronic documents.

E-discovery

The fact that courts are increasingly recognizing electronic evidence has led to a number of e-discovery vendors opening shops in China and developing software to extract data from online platforms and services, said Global Law Office's Fang. But these vendors and telecom network distributors also face additional compliance burdens in terms of accommodating authorities' requests to assist in investigations, he said.

（作者：赵修敏）

中国最高法院、检察和公安机关发布有关刑事诉讼电子证据取证和处理的规则，为检察官提供指引，为辩护律师带来新挑战，也为电子取证带来更广大的机遇。

尽管国家法院在传统上更倾向接受文件证据，但随着近年来电子通讯和交易迅速增长，以纸质形式呈现所有证据的难度也越来越大。针对在刑事案件中须取得有效电子数据的情况，新指引正式确定了现有做法和方法，为执法官员有时未能掌握最新电子证据标准的情况, 带来明确方向。

方达律师事务所争议解决合伙人缪彬指出：“由于数字形式的证据很容易被修改或篡改，对于法院是否会接受数字证据有许多不确定因素。新规定明确了电子数据可靠存储和出示的标准，正式实现了一大变革。”

最高人民法院、最高人民检察院和公安部在2016年9月9日联合发布《关于办理刑事案件收集提取和审查判断电子数据若干问题的规定》（《规定》），2016年10月1日生效 。

缪彬提了深圳市快播科技有限公司案件，这家网络视频平台运营商（即“快播”） 被诉在其网站传播非法侵权视频片段和内容。

“被诉责任人已被逮捕，但检察官在出示所有电子证据时面临很大困难，辩护律师对数据完整性、存储、许可等各种问题都提出了强烈异议，”缪彬说。

《规定》主要针对解决这些问题 。第5条列出了保护电子数据完整性的规则，如扣押原始存储介质、制作数据备份、冻结数据、对收集、提取电子数据的相关活动进行录像。

《规定》也就电子证据在法庭的保全、合法性和可采性问题为地方检察官提供指引，同时也给辩护律师带来引人关注的挑战，例如是否严格遵守完整性规则、证据是否成立。

检察官和调查人员在向网络和互联网服务提供商（ISP）发送通知、取得数据持有人同意时，需要遵守特定指引。《规定》在其他一些方面也提出了严格要求，例如在检查或收集原始数据时须有证人在场并记录检查程序，提取数据的司法监定方式须符合技术标准。

《规定》明确要求ISP在刑事调查中服从执法部门，例如从服务器提供原始数据，在电子交易或通讯记录被命令冻结期间中止账号。

刑事与民事案件

“最高人民法院已就民事诉讼中认可电子证据出台了若干指导意见和案件，但这些新规则也确认法院、检察院和警察有权在刑事诉讼中要求获得网络运营商的配合。”环球律师事务所上海办事处合伙人方建伟说。

但问题是，有关刑事案件的规则能否被理解和运用到民事争议中。

《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》和《 中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》2012年的修订将“电子数据”引入可采数据类别。在此之前，两部诉讼法分别在1996年和2008年经过修改（其他列举的证据形式包括陈述、书证和物证、视听资料、证人证言、专家或司法监定意见、现场检查或调查记录。）

2015年1月30日出台的《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》对适用于民事案件的“电子数据”提供了更为具体的定义，包括通过电子邮件、电子数据交换、网上聊天记录、博客、微博客、手机短信、电子签名、域名等形成或者存储在电子介质中的信息。

尽管这些例子在刑事争议中不具有法律约束力，在实际操作中一般都采用。

去年的《中华人民共和国刑法》修正案对数据保护更为严格，并纳入网络安全问题，但是新规定标志着有关部门第一次对刑事诉讼使用电子证据表明正式立场。

第1条规定的范围远大于最高人民法院有关民事诉讼法的解释：

• 网页、博客、微博、社交互动/时间线（例如微信朋友圈）、论坛（尤其是百度贴吧）和和存储在网络光盘或在平台上发布的其他信息
• 手机短信、电子邮件、即时通讯、通讯群组等网络应用服务的通信信息
• 用户注册信息、身份认证信息、电子交易记录、通信记录、登录日志等信息
• 文档、图片、音视频、数字证书、计算机程序等电子文件。

电子取证

环球律师事务所的方律师提到，由于电子证据日益得到法院认可，一些电子取证供应商也开始在中国开店，开发从网络平台和服务提取数据的软件。但他指出，就满足有关部门协助调查的要求而言，这些服务商和电信网络分销商也面临着额外的合规负担。

Contact the writer at [email protected].