Digital Forensics and Evidentiary Admissibility in Cross-Border Cybercrime Investigations: A Comparative Analysis of UK, EU, and Emerging Jurisdictions

  • Authors

    • Rashid Hussain Nour Internet Company for communication & IT, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Author

    DOI:

    https://doi.org/10.67228/30713315/IJAIDT-V9I4P101

    Published 10-03-2026

  • Digital Forensics, Digital Evidence, Cybercrime, Evidentiary Admissibility, Cross-Border Investigations, Cloud Evidence, Chain Of Custody, International Cooperation

    Issue

    Vol. 9 No. 4 (2026)

    Section

    Articles

  • Abstract

    The transnational nature of cybercrime has created significant challenges for the lawful acquisition, preservation, authentication and admissibility of digital evidence across national borders. These challenges are intensified by cloud computing, distributed data storage, service-provider control, encryption, differing procedural safeguards and variations in national evidentiary requirements. This study comparatively examines digital forensics and evidentiary admissibility in the United Kingdom, European Union, Saudi Arabia, India and South Africa. Using a qualitative comparative doctrinal legal methodology, it analyses legislation, international instruments, official materials and relevant scholarly literature concerning forensic acquisition, preservation, hashing, metadata, logs, timestamps, tool reliability, chain of custody, cross-border access, service-provider cooperation, privacy and judicial oversight. The analysis demonstrates substantial convergence around the importance of authenticity, integrity, reliability and preservation, but continuing divergence in the legal mechanisms governing acquisition, authentication and courtroom use. Particular challenges arise where cloud-based evidence is produced by service providers rather than directly acquired by forensic examiners, increasing the importance of provenance, metadata preservation and documented handling. The study finds that lawful acquisition and evidentiary admissibility are distinct but interconnected stages. Evidence may be obtained through a valid domestic or international mechanism yet remain vulnerable if its authenticity, integrity, provenance or chain of custody cannot subsequently be demonstrated. Effective cross-border digital-evidence cooperation therefore requires stronger interoperability between legal authority, digital-forensic standards, provider practices, data-protection safeguards and evidentiary requirements.

  • References

    [1] 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.

    [2] James, J. I., & Gladyshev, P. (2016). A survey of mutual legal assistance involving digital evidence. Digital Investigation, 18, 23–32. doi:10.1016/j.diin.2016.06.004.

    [3] Blažič, B. J., & Klobučar, T. (2020). Removing the barriers in cross-border crime investigation by gathering e-evidence in an interconnected society. Information & Communications Technology Law, 29(1), 66-81.

    [4] Zhang, H., & Gong, X. (2024). The research on an electronic evidence forensic system for cross-border cybercrime. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 28(1), 21-44.

    [5] 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.

    [6] Shurson, J. (2025). The balance of efficiency and fundamental rights in the EU e-Evidence Regulation. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 16(3), 278-299.

    [7] Daskal, J. (2015). The un-territoriality of data. Yale lJ, 125, 326.

    [8] Woods, A. K. (2016). Against data exceptionalism. Stan. L. Rev., 68, 729.

    [9] Casey, E. (2011). Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computers, and the internet. Academic press.

    [10] Horsman, G. (2023). Digital evidence strategies for digital forensic science examinations. Science & justice, 63(1), 116-126.

    [11] Potla, R. (2023). Designing a BTP-centric integration mesh for shop-floor IoT, MES and ERP in discrete manufacturing. Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Data Science, 1(2), 1-8.

    [12] 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.

    [13] Adelusi, A. J. (2026). Evaluating AI-Driven Cybersecurity Systems: Effectiveness, Adversarial Risks, and Ethical Considerations. International Journal of AI, BigData, Computational and Management Studies, 7(1), 274-285. https://doi.org/10.63282/3050-9416.IJAIBDCMS-V7I1P142

    [14] Turner, P. (2005). Unification of digital evidence from disparate sources (digital evidence bags). Digital Investigation, 2(3), 223-228.

    [15] Turner, P. (2007). Applying a forensic approach to incident response, network investigation and system administration using Digital Evidence Bags. Digital Investigation, 4(1), 30-35.

    [16] Kyei, K., Zavarsky, P., Lindskog, D., & Ruhl, R. (2012, October). A review and comparative study of digital forensic investigation models. In International conference on digital forensics and cyber crime (pp. 314-327). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

    [17] 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.

    [18] Chadha, V., & Sivaraman, J. (2024). Critical analysis of the law on admissibility of electronic evidence in India. Jindal Global Law Review, 15(1), 119-132.

    [19] Roberts, P., & Zuckerman, A. (2022). Roberts & Zuckerman's criminal evidence. Oxford University Press.

    [20] Swales, L. (2018). An Analysis of the Regulatory Environment Governing Hearsay Electronic Evidence in South Africa: Suggestions for Reform-Part Two. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal (PELJ), 21(1), 1-34.

    [21] Potla, R. B. (2022). ISCSITR–International Journal of ERP and CRM (ISCSITR. IJEC, 3(1), 11-38.

    [22] Roux, C., Crispino, F., & Ribaux, O. (2012). From forensics to forensic science. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 24(1), 7-24.

    [23] Marcén, A. G. (2024). The Budapest convention and the UN cybercrime convention negotiations. In Global cybersecurity and international law (pp. 174-192). Routledge.

    [24] Rica, C., & Macedonia, N. (2022). Second Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime on enhanced co-operation and disclosure of electronic evidence.

    [25] Belfiore, R. (2015). The European Investigation Order in criminal matters: developments in evidence-gathering across the EU. Eur. Crim. L. Rev., 5, 312.

    [26] Regulation, G. D. P. (2016). European Parliament, Council of the European Union. Regulation, 679.

    [27] Beqiraj, P., Gjipali, D., & Jançe, K. (2024). The Integral Role of the Albanian Parliament in EU Integration through National Law Approximation (January 2018-December 2023). Access to Just. E. Eur., 169.

    [28] United Kingdom. (1984). Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, c. 60.

    [29] Olley, N. (2019). 207 Transnational policing and organised crime. The Development of Transnational Policing: Past, Present and Future, 207-238.

    [30] Adelusi, A. J. (2026). Enhancing Cybersecurity Resilience in U.S. Financial Infrastructure: A Risk-Based and Regulatory Approach. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Research, 2(01). https://research-education.com/index.php/ijaie/article/view/38

    [31] Benhafsi, S. (2025). " Digital Forensics is the Newest, Most Troublesome Forensic Discipline": A Critical Examination of the Use of Digital Forensics in the Investigation and Prosecution of Major Crime in England and Wales (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Wales (United Kingdom)).

    [32] El Said, M. (2018). Intellectual property law in Saudi Arabia. Kluwer Law International BV.

    [33] Said, M. E. (2018). Intellectual Property Law in Saudi Arabia.

    [34] Waksmańska, M. (2021). The procedural principles in criminal proceedings in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Arab Republic of Egypt. In Oriental Meetings in Sosnowiec Language, Literature, Society Sosnowieckie Spotkania Orientalistyczne Język, literatura, społeczeństwo (p. 145).

    [35] Alangari, A. (2021). A Proposal for Omnibus Legal Reform of Saudi Construction Practices to Meet Economic Development Goals in Saudi Arabia: An Initiative for Legislative Reform Towards Effective and Codified Judicial Remedies, Compatible with Sharia Law and Aligned with Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030. American University.

    [36] Potla, R. B. (2024). A SOX/ITAR-aligned global ERP template for multi-plant manufacturers: Governance patterns and controls. J Artif Intell Mach Learn & Data Sci, 2(2), 3222-3232.

    [37] Bamashmoos, A. M. Consent Requirements and Limitations in Saudi Arabia's Personal Data Protection Law: An In-depth Analysis.

    [38] Data, S., & Authority, A. I. (2024). Regulation on Personal Data Transfer Outside the Kingdom. Riyadh: SDAIA.

    [39] Tomar, A. S. The Indian Journal for Research in Law and Management.

    [40] Coetzee, J. (2004). The Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002: facilitating electronic commerce. Stellenbosch Law Review, 15(3), 501-521.

  • Downloads