Generally yes. Courts in both civil law and common law systems accept blockchain analyses, either under the principle of free assessment of evidence or under the rules on expert evidence. Transactions recorded on a public blockchain can be checked independently by anyone, which makes them strong evidence of movements of funds. What courts scrutinise is the interpretation: how addresses were attributed to people or services, which tracing rules were applied, and whether the conclusions go beyond what the data shows. A well-documented, reproducible report by a qualified expert carries much more weight than a screenshot from a tool.
Facts versus interpretation
A blockchain analysis contains two layers. The first is factual: transaction hashes, amounts, timestamps and addresses, all verifiable on a public block explorer. The second is interpretative: clustering addresses into wallets, attributing clusters to exchanges or individuals, and choosing how to follow funds when they are mixed with others. Opposing parties and courts focus on the second layer, because that is where errors and overstatements occur.
What makes an analysis reliable
- Every key transaction cited with its hash so the court can verify it.
- Sources of attribution stated (exchange responses, public labels, provider data) with their level of confidence.
- The tracing method explained (for example how mixed funds are allocated) and applied consistently.
- Clear separation between what the data proves and what is an inference.
- An expert who can explain and defend the work in a hearing.
Party report or court expert
Systems differ in who appoints the expert. In many civil law countries the court or prosecutor appoints its own expert, and a report commissioned by a party carries less formal weight; Swiss courts, for example, treat it as part of that party's submissions, while in Italy a party's technical consultant takes part in the proceedings alongside the court's expert. In common law systems the parties usually instruct their own experts, who nonetheless owe their primary duty to the court and must be independent. In all these systems a party report is useful: it can trigger investigations, support a freezing or seizure request, or shape the questions put to the court's expert.
Preserving the data
Timing also matters in practice. Data from exchanges and attribution databases can change, so a report should record when each query was made and preserve the underlying exports. On-chain transactions do not change, which means a well-referenced report can still be verified years later, at trial or on appeal, in whichever country the case is heard.
How Advisorn helps
Advisorn Forensics prepares signed blockchain reports designed for court use, with verifiable references and a stated method, for clients in different jurisdictions. The managing partner acts as party-appointed technical consultant in Italian criminal proceedings and can explain the findings in hearings.
Examples: Art. 10 para. 2 Swiss CrimPC (free assessment of evidence); Art. 192 Italian CPP (assessment of evidence); Civil Procedure Rules Part 35 (England and Wales, expert evidence); Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (United States, expert testimony)
Updated November 2026 · General information, not legal or tax advice on your specific case.