Screenshots get taken apart in the Grand Court.
ProofSnap doesn't.

ProofSnap is a Chrome and Edge extension that captures web pages as legal evidence with blockchain timestamping, so the authenticity and integrity of the files can be checked independently.

ProofSnap uses OpenTimestamps to anchor a SHA-256 hash of your evidence to the Bitcoin blockchain, creating a cryptographic proof of when the capture was made. This timestamp is independently verifiable and cannot be backdated or tampered with, providing independently checkable proof that your evidence existed at a specific point in time.

ProofSnap includes a 7-day free trial with all plans. The trial requires a credit card, and you are not charged if you cancel before it ends. Choose from flexible monthly or annual subscriptions: Essential, $8.99 per month or $80 per year; Professional, $16.99 per month or $160 per year; Enterprise, $28.99 per month or $280 per year. Annual plans save 20%.

ProofSnap generates forensically sound evidence with cryptographic proofs aligned with eIDAS 2 standards for qualified timestamps and digital signatures. Admissibility depends on jurisdiction and specific legal requirements. Consult a Cayman Islands attorney about your own matter.

Regular screenshots can be challenged in court because they carry no proof of when they were taken or whether they have been altered. In Cayman the first half of that problem is largely solved for you: section 12 of the Electronic Transactions Act stops a court denying admissibility just because a record is electronic, so a capture gets in. What remains is the half that decides cases. Section 48(1)(c) of the Evidence Act asks whether the computer was operating properly, and section 49(3)(c) asks about contemporaneity and incentive. Each is a technical fact you can demonstrate or fail to demonstrate.

ProofSnap addresses this by creating a forensic evidence package containing a SHA-256 hash proving the content has not been modified, an RSA-4096 digital signature for authenticity, an eIDAS qualified timestamp issued by Disig a.s., a Qualified Trust Service Provider on the EU Trusted List, a Bitcoin blockchain anchor, and full metadata including the URL and the capture time in UTC. The presumption goes to the time and the integrity of the data rather than to admissibility generally or to the truth of what the page said, so a court or an adjudicator still weighs the evidence. What it removes is the argument about when the capture was made and whether it changed afterwards.

No, and we will not pretend otherwise. The Cayman Islands is a British Overseas Territory, was never EU territory, and the presumption in Article 41(2) of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 does not run here.

What Cayman does have is section 22(1) of the Electronic Transactions Act: "no regard shall be had to the place where the certificate or the electronic signature was issued, nor to the jurisdiction in which the issuer had its place of business." That is the clause that puts an EU-issued qualified timestamp on the same footing as a domestic one, weighed on its merits rather than discounted for being foreign. Combine it with the section 2 definition, which names authenticity, time of processing and integrity as the properties an information security procedure is designed to establish, and the statute is describing the product without naming it.

ProofSnap uses three layers of cryptographic protection:

1. SHA-256 Hashing: Every file in the evidence package is hashed. Changing even a single pixel or character produces a completely different hash, making any tampering immediately detectable.
2. Digital Signature: The manifest (listing all files and their hashes) is digitally signed with a private key. The corresponding public key is included for anyone to verify authenticity.
3. Blockchain Timestamp: The manifest hash is anchored to the Bitcoin blockchain via OpenTimestamps, creating an immutable record of when the evidence was captured. This timestamp cannot be forged or backdated.

Together, these mechanisms create a chain of integrity that proves that the evidence is authentic and unaltered, and that it was captured at a specific point in time.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1183, known as eIDAS 2, will be fully rolled out by the end of 2026, establishing stricter standards for electronic identification, digital signatures, and qualified electronic timestamps across all EU member states.

Under Article 41(2), a qualified electronic time stamp shall enjoy the presumption of the accuracy of the date and the time it indicates and the integrity of the data to which the date and time are bound. That presumption operates in the European Union. It does not reach the Cayman Islands, which is a British Overseas Territory and was never EU territory, so before the Grand Court the qualified timestamp is corroboration of time and integrity rather than a statutory presumption. Section 22(1) of the Electronic Transactions Act is what makes a foreign-issued certificate count here on its merits.

ProofSnap's cryptographic proofs align with eIDAS 2 requirements: SHA-256 hashing for data integrity, RSA-4096 digital signatures for authenticity, and blockchain timestamps via OpenTimestamps for independent time verification. Each of those is verifiable offline by anyone, which is what makes the package useful in a Cayman proceeding and, where a matter also touches Europe, in an EU one.

Usually yes, and then the real argument starts. Section 12 of the Electronic Transactions Act (2003 Revision) says the admissibility of an electronic record shall not be denied solely on the grounds that it is an electronic record. So getting in is rarely the problem.

What decides its value is different, and Cayman is unusual here: the Electronic Transactions Act gives admissibility and stops. There is no statutory list of weight factors of the kind Cayman Islands and the Bahamas have. Weight falls to judicial discretion under section 49(3) of the Evidence Act, which asks about contemporaneity and whether anyone concerned had an incentive to conceal or misrepresent the facts. Both are answered better by a capture whose time was fixed by a Bitcoin block and a qualified timestamp than by a witness explaining what they remember doing.

Cayman kept the statutory computer-evidence route England repealed on 31 January 1997. Section 48 of the Evidence Act (2021 Revision) makes a computer-produced document admissible if four conditions are met, including section 48(1)(c), that throughout the material part of the period the computer was operating properly.

The definitions are wide enough to cover ordinary practice: section 2 defines a computer as "any device or combination of devices used together or in succession for the purpose of storing and processing information", and a document as including "any device by means of which information is recorded or stored". A laptop running a browser is squarely inside both.

Yes. Section 48(2) provides for a certificate signed by a person occupying a responsible position with relation to the operation of the relevant device. It identifies the document, describes how it was produced, gives particulars of the device and deals with the section 48 conditions.

Treat it seriously: section 49(5) makes a certificate a person knows to be false, or does not believe to be true, an indictable offence carrying two years. A ProofSnap package supplies the factual substrate for that certificate at capture time rather than leaving it to be reconstructed. The chain of custody describes the manner of production, the forensic log and extension integrity record are the particulars of the device, and the Provenance Certificate speaks to proper operation. We do not write or sign the certificate. We give you the material it has to be built from.

There is no standing practice direction on electronic discovery in Cayman. Searching the 416-page Practice Directions consolidation for "electronic discovery", "e-discovery" and "eDiscovery" returns nothing at all. E-discovery is handled through a protocol approved case by case, as in the Abraaj joint official liquidators' proceedings where the court approved technology-assisted review.

What you want to annex is a described, repeatable process rather than an assertion. Order 24 rule 2(1) puts lists of documents in play within 14 days of close of pleadings, and rule 5(3) requires confidentiality claims under the Confidential Information Disclosure Act to be made in the list itself, so the timetable is tight and the categories matter. A package that hashes every file, signs the manifest and ships verification scripts the other side can run is something you can describe once and reuse across matters.

That is the objection every screenshot invites, and with a plain image there is no answer to it beyond your own word. In Cayman the allegation is that the file was altered after capture, and that is answered with bytes, not with credibility.

A ProofSnap package answers the objection from the file. Every file carries a SHA-256 hash, the manifest listing those hashes is signed with an RSA-4096 key, the public key travels with the package, and the verification scripts recompute all of it in front of whoever is asking. Change one pixel and the hash no longer matches. That is also what lets you speak to section 48(1)(c), whether the computer was operating properly, and to a section 48(2) certificate.

Then authenticity is conceded, and this is the most commercially useful rule on the page. Order 27 rule 5(3) of the Grand Court Rules provides that a party who fails to give a notice of non-admission in accordance with paragraph (2) "shall be deemed to have admitted the authenticity of that document unless the Court otherwise orders". The window is 21 days.

So the proposition is not that your evidence will be admitted. It is that your opponent will decide it is not worth fighting. A document carrying a SHA-256 hash of every file, an RSA-4096 signed manifest, an OpenTimestamps anchor and a qualified timestamp offers an opponent no realistic path to a win on authenticity, only a trial day spent losing the point. Most will let it through and argue about what the page means instead, which is the argument you wanted to have.

The new CIMA AML Rule and Sanctions Rule take effect on 18 September 2026 and turn screening into a binding obligation with record-keeping attached. The awkward part is that a screening result is a web page, and web pages change. A list is updated, an article is edited, a register entry moves from licensed to revoked.

Capture the result as you saw it, on the date the file says you looked. A ProofSnap package fixes the page, the URL and the time, hashes every file and signs the manifest, so the compliance file shows what was seen and when rather than asserting that a check happened. That is the difference between a record and a note. It is also the difference between an inspection finding and a closed point.

Capture first, then instruct. In 2026 the Grand Court granted an interim injunction and then a mandatory order requiring removal of content from every platform under the respondent's control. A takedown order is a remedy, but it destroys the very material a claimant needs at trial and a defendant needs to show what was actually published.

You have three years to sue for defamation under section 4(2) of the Limitation Act, and the post will not survive three weeks. Capture the post, the full thread around it, the account profile with its handle and follower count, and any republication, before you do anything that alerts the poster. Then take it to a Cayman Islands attorney.

Forensic mode is an optional, deeper form of capture included in the Professional, Enterprise and Company plans (not in Essential or the SnapPacks).

It adds a complete archive of the page's network layer: every HTTP request and response (network.har), a WARC copy of the page, all loaded resources, and the full TLS certificate chain. To capture that it attaches the debugger (the browser shows a "being debugged" banner).

Every one of those files is hashed into the RSA-4096 signed manifest, so the OpenTimestamps blockchain anchor and the eIDAS qualified timestamp cover the network archive exactly as they cover the screenshot.