Dutch court accepts blockchain evidence in data trafficking case, defendant gets two years

A court in the Netherlands has accepted blockchain-derived evidence in a data trafficking case, sentencing a defendant to two years in prison.

The case involved data trafficking, a category of cybercrime that has surged across Europe as stolen personal information becomes a tradable commodity on dark web marketplaces. Dutch authorities used blockchain analysis to build a prosecutable trail against the defendant, and the court found that evidence compelling enough to hand down a two-year sentence.

This is not the first time the Netherlands has leaned on blockchain forensics in a criminal proceeding. Dutch police and FIOD, the country’s fiscal intelligence and investigation service, have been integrating blockchain analysis into cross-border investigations for years. Their toolkit allows them to trace illicit financial flows across wallets, exchanges, and mixing services.

The most high-profile example remains the Tornado Cash case. Alexey Pertsev, co-founder of the Ethereum-based mixer, was sentenced to five years and four months in prison after a Dutch court relied heavily on on-chain evidence to link the protocol to the laundering of over $1.2 billion in stolen digital assets.

Every transaction is timestamped, hashed, and stored on a distributed ledger that nobody controls and nobody can retroactively alter. That combination of immutability and precision is exactly what courts look for when evaluating whether electronic evidence meets admissibility standards.

Europe’s expanding legal playbook

French courts have recognized blockchain timestamping as legitimate evidence in legal disputes. Chinese courts have gone further, formally affirming the technical validity of blockchain records in judicial proceedings.

The admissibility framework in the Netherlands generally slots blockchain evidence under existing electronic evidence standards. Courts evaluate the reliability of the data based on cryptographic hashes, timestamps, and the inherent properties of the underlying protocol. No new legislation was required to make this work.

What this means for investors and the broader market

For legitimate market participants, greater legal clarity around how blockchain records are treated in court reduces uncertainty for institutions considering entering the space. If on-chain data is reliable enough to convict someone, it’s reliable enough to settle a commercial dispute, verify a transaction history, or satisfy a compliance audit.

The two-year sentence in this case and the five-year-plus sentence in the Tornado Cash case bracket a range of consequences for anyone treating blockchain pseudonymity as genuine anonymity.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.