In identifying electronic evidence, there are embarrassing dilemmas in practice, such as the confusion of the distribution of burden of proof, the inconsistency of the identification standards of evidence qualification, and the difficulty of accurately grasping the power of evidence. In this regard, we should take the basic theory of normative theory as the starting point, and the party who advocates positive facts or positive rights should bear the burden of proof at the level of result significance of the existence of loan legal relationship, and clearly distinguish between “defense” and “denial”. In the identification of authenticity, the rules of direct identification, indirect identification, presumption and self identification of the parties are introduced to make a comprehensive judgment in combination with the specific circumstances of the case. In the determination of legitimacy, we should pay attention to the exclusionary rules of civil illegal evidence. In terms of relevance, it is required that the relationship between electronic data and lending law should be related in form and content. To determine the probative force of electronic evidence, we should focus on its reliability and integrity, and the identification of copy evidence does not have to abide by the the standard used to indentify the original evidence.