Abstract
A smart contract is more than a technical phenomenon; it raises legal questions about intent, transaction form, and obligation performance in a digital environment. Kazakhstani law, including the Civil Code and the Law on Electronic Documents, provides a basis for digital tools in contracts, recognizing electronic forms and the principles of freedom of contract. AIFC law further validates automated systems. However, the lack of a conceptual definition in civil legislation creates challenges for public law. This article argues that smart contracts should not be viewed as standalone contract types but through a functional approach: as either a form of expressing intent or an automated performance mechanism. Special focus is placed on criminal proceedings. The authors demonstrate that the absence of a clear definition complicates distinguishing civil torts from cybercrimes and hinders the use of code as evidence or the seizure of digital assets. The core issue is the discrepancy between traditional civil law constructs, blockchain logic, and current procedural evidentiary standards in Kazakhstan.