Cyber Crime and the Legal Challenges of Digital Evidence: Admissibility and Reliability
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66635/c6za2991Keywords:
cybercrime, digital evidence, digital forensics, admissibility, blockchainAbstract
The rapid growth of cybercrime has significantly increased the importance of digital evidence in criminal investigations and judicial proceedings. However, ensuring the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence remains a complex challenge due to technological advancements, evolving legal standards, cross-border investigations, and concerns regarding evidence integrity. This narrative review examines the legal and forensic dimensions of digital evidence by synthesizing contemporary literature on its sources, characteristics, governing legal frameworks, and the factors influencing its acceptance in court. The review discusses key issues related to authentication, chain of custody, expert testimony, procedural fairness, and evidence validation, while also evaluating the impact of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, blockchain, the Internet of Things, and deepfake detection on digital forensic practice. The findings indicate that reliable digital evidence requires standardized forensic procedures, scientifically validated investigative methods, and harmonized legal frameworks capable of addressing rapidly evolving cyber threats. Strengthening collaboration among forensic practitioners, legal professionals, researchers, and policymakers will be essential for improving evidence integrity, enhancing judicial confidence, and supporting effective cybercrime investigations. The review provides an integrated perspective that contributes to ongoing discussions on developing secure, transparent, and legally robust digital evidence management practices.
References
1.Abraha, H. H. (2021). Law enforcement access to electronic evidence across borders: mapping policy approaches and emerging reform initiatives. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 29(2), 118-153.
2.Akinbi, A., & Berry, T. (2020). Forensic investigation of google assistant. SN Computer Science, 1(5), 272.
3.Aksamitowska, K. (2021). Digital evidence in domestic core international crimes prosecutions: Lessons learned from germany, sweden, finland and the netherlands. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 19(1), 189-211.
4.Burri, X., Casey, E., Bolle, T., & Jaquet-Chiffelle, D. O. (2020). Chronological independently verifiable electronic chain of custody ledger using blockchain technology. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 33, 300976.
5.Casey, E. (2019). The chequered past and risky future of digital forensics. Australian journal of forensic sciences, 51(6), 649-664.
6.Casey, E., Ribaux, O., & Roux, C. (2019). The Kodak syndrome: risks and opportunities created by decentralization of forensic capabilities. Journal of forensic sciences, 64(1), 127-136.
7.Casino, F., Dasaklis, T. K., Spathoulas, G. P., Anagnostopoulos, M., Ghosal, A., Borocz, I., ... & Patsakis, C. (2022). Research trends, challenges, and emerging topics in digital forensics: A review of reviews. Ieee Access, 10, 25464-25493.
8.Casino, F., Pina, C., López-Aguilar, P., Batista, E., Solanas, A., & Patsakis, C. (2022). SoK: Cross-border criminal investigations and digital evidence. Journal of Cybersecurity, 8(1), tyac014.
9.Chesney, B., & Citron, D. (2019). Deep fakes: A looming challenge for privacy, democracy, and national security. Calif. L. Rev., 107, 1753.
10.Costantini, F., Galvan, F., De Stefani, M. A., & Battiato, S. (2020). Assessing information quality in IoT forensics: Theoretical framework and model implementation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.14663.
11.D’Alessandra, F., & Sutherland, K. (2021). The promise and challenges of new actors and new technologies in international justice. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 19(1), 9–34.
12.Dunsin, D., Ghanem, M. C., Ouazzane, K., & Vassilev, V. (2024). A comprehensive analysis of the role of artificial intelligence and machine learning in modern digital forensics and incident response. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 48(301675), 1-22.
13.Ferreira, D. B., & Gromova, E. A. (2024). Digital Evidence: The Admissibility of Leaked and Hacked Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 37(3), 903-922.
14.Fiorella, G., Godart, C., & Waters, N. (2021). Digital integrity: Exploring digital evidence vulnerabilities and mitigation strategies for open source researchers. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 19(1), 147-161.
15.Freeman, L. (2021). Weapons of war, tools of justice: using artificial intelligence to investigate international crimes. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 19(1), 35-53.
16.Freeman, L., & Vazquez Llorente, R. (2021). Finding the signal in the noise: International criminal evidence and procedure in the digital age. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 19(1), 163-188.
17.Gabriele, C., Matheson, K., & Llorente, R. V. (2021). The role of mobile technology in documenting international crimes: The affaire Castro et Kizito in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 19(1), 107-130.
18.Gillett, M., & Fan, W. (2023). Expert evidence and digital open source information: Bringing online evidence to the courtroom. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 21(4), 661-693.
19.Groh, M., Epstein, Z., Firestone, C., & Picard, R. (2022). Deepfake detection by human crowds, machines, and machine-informed crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(1), e2110013119.
20.Ismail, I., & Akram Zainol Ariffin, K. (2025). The admissibility of digital evidence from open-source forensic tools: Development of a framework for legal acceptance. PLoS One, 20(9), e0331683.
21.Klasén, L., Fock, N., & Forchheimer, R. (2024). The invisible evidence: Digital forensics as key to solving crimes in the digital age. Forensic science international, 362, 112133.
22.Koenig, A., & EGAN, U. (2021). Power and privilege. Journal of International Criminal Justice.
23.Kumar, G., Saha, R., Lal, C., & Conti, M. (2021). Internet-of-Forensic (IoF): A blockchain based digital forensics framework for IoT applications. Future Generation Computer Systems, 120, 13-25.
24.Malik, A., & Sharma, A. K. (2023). Blockchain-based digital chain of custody multimedia evidence preservation framework for internet-of-things. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 77, 103579.
25.Matijašević, J., Bingulac, N., & Marinković, D. (2024). DIGITAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS–CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS. Law-Theory and Practice, 41(4), 18-33.
26.McDermott, Y., Koenig, A., & Murray, D. (2021). Open source information’s blind spot: human and machine bias in international criminal investigations. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 19(1), 85-105.
27.Mirsky, Y., & Lee, W. (2021). The creation and detection of deepfakes: A survey. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 54(1), 1-41.
28.Montasari, R., Hill, R., Montaseri, F., Jahankhani, H., & Hosseinian-Far, A. (2020). Internet of things devices: digital forensic process and data reduction. International Journal of Electronic Security and Digital Forensics, 12(4), 424-436.
29.Moussa, A. F. (2021). Electronic evidence and its authenticity in forensic evidence. Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 11(1), 20.
30.Onwubiko, D. C., & Eboibi, F. E. (2020). The application of forensics examination in crime-related prosecution: The need for standardization and a recognized model in Nigeria. Digital Evidence & Elec. Signature L. Rev., 17, 83.
31.Patil, H., Kohli, R. K., Puri, S., & Puri, P. (2024). Potential applicability of blockchain technology in the maintenance of chain of custody in forensic casework. Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 14(1), 12.
32.Radeva, E. (2021). The potential for computer vision to advance accountability in the Syrian crisis. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 19(1), 131-146.
33.Rani, D., Gill, N. S., Gulia, P., Yahya, M., Ahanger, T. A., Hassan, M. M., ... & Shukla, P. K. (2025). A secure digital evidence preservation system for an iot-enabled smart environment using ipfs, blockchain, and smart contracts. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications, 18(2), 5.
34.Reedy, P. (2020). Interpol review of digital evidence 2016-2019. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 2, 489-520.
35.Reedy, P. (2023). Interpol review of digital evidence for 2019–2022. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 6, 100313.
36.Robinson, G. (2023). Targeted Retention of Communications Metadata: Future-proofing the Fight Against Serious Crime in Europe?. European Papers-A Journal on Law and Integration, 2023(2), 713-740.
37.Sachoulidou, A. (2024). Cross-border access to electronic evidence in criminal matters: The new EU legislation and the consolidation of a paradigm shift in the area of ‘judicial’cooperation. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 15(3), 256-274.
38.Servida, F., & Casey, E. (2019). IoT forensic challenges and opportunities for digital traces. Digital Investigation, 28, S22-S29.
39.Shurson, J. (2020). Data protection and law enforcement access to digital evidence: Resolving the reciprocal conflicts between EU and US law. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 28(2), 167–184.
40.Stoykova, R. (2021). Digital evidence: Unaddressed threats to fairness and the presumption of innocence. Computer Law & Security Review, 42, 105575.
41.Stoykova, R. (2022). The right to a fair trial as a conceptual framework for digital evidence rules in criminal investigations. University of Groningen Faculty of Law Research Paper, (31).
42.Stoykova, R. A. (2024). A new right to procedural accuracy: A governance model for digital evidence in criminal proceedings. Computer Law & Security Review, 55, 106040.
43.Stoykova, R., & Franke, K. (2023). Reliability validation enabling framework (RVEF) for digital forensics in criminal investigations. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 45, 301554.
44.Sunde, N., & Dror, I. E. (2019). Cognitive and human factors in digital forensics: Problems, challenges, and the way forward. Digital investigation, 29, 101-108.
45.Tian, Z., Li, M., Qiu, M., Sun, Y., & Su, S. (2019). Block-DEF: A secure digital evidence framework using blockchain. Information Sciences, 491, 151-165.
46.Tosza, S. (2024). Electronic Evidence after E-evidence Package’s Adoption: Challenges for Application and Unresolved Problems. Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, 33(5), 237-260.
47.Verdoliva, L. (2020). Media forensics and deepfakes: an overview. IEEE journal of selected topics in signal processing, 14(5), 910-932.
48.Ward, T. (2020). Explaining and trusting expert evidence: What is a ‘sufficiently reliable scientific basis’?. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 24(3), 233-254.
49.Westerlund, M. (2019). The emergence of deepfake technology: A review. Technology innovation management review, 9(11).
50.Zarmsky, S. (2021). Why seeing should not always be believing: Considerations regarding the use of Digital reconstruction Technology in International Law. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 19(1), 213-225.
