Israeli court strikes a defendant's expert report it found rested on AI-hallucinated case law and orders her to pay the banks' costs
On 8 October 2026 the Magistrates' Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel, struck from the file a banking expert's opinion that a defendant in a civil negligence suit had filed, finding that the heart of the opinion and its annexes rested on clear 'AI hallucinations': a Supreme Court ruling the court could not locate, a book it could not find and statutory sections quoted with text the statute does not contain. The court also refused the defendant's request to amend her third-party notice against two banks, partly because the amendment relied on the struck opinion, and ordered her to pay costs of 2,500 shekels to each bank. No AI tool is named, and the decision records no response from the expert.
- AI system
- Unidentified AI tool
- Occurred
- 8 Oct 2026
- Reported
- 8 October 2026
- Event location
- Israel
- What the AI did
- Informed a human decision about the person
- Reported harm
- Legal HarmFinancial Loss
- Whose AI use
- Someone else’s AI use
- Setting
- Justice · Finance
- Evidence
- AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source
- 5 claims: 5 documented. 3 open questions
- People reported harmed
- 1 person
AI system as recorded: Unidentified generative AI tool; the court found that the expert opinion rests on AI hallucinations but names no tool, and the expert did not respond
What Happened
The suit. A plaintiff sued a lawyer who had acted as trustee, alleging that she negligently transferred estate money to his former partner's account instead of his own. The lawyer filed a third-party notice against two banks and, on 10 March 2026, a banking expert's opinion.
The opinion. One bank asked the court to strike the opinion, arguing that it rested on case law, legislation and literature invented by artificial intelligence; the second bank joined, describing the opinion as built on AI hallucinations. The defendant answered that the question of AI use belonged in cross-examination. The court checked the sources itself. It could not locate the Supreme Court ruling the opinion called a precedent by number or by party names, found that another cited proceeding did not concern the issue described, found no book, article or quotation matching the cited legal text, and found that the quoted sections of the Payment Services Law say something different. It noted that the defendant filed no response from the expert.
The decision. The court held that the heart of the opinion and its annexes rest on clear 'AI hallucinations' and on a distortion of the statute, so the opinion cannot serve as evidence, and that an opinion resting on AI hallucinations is a substantive defect justifying its removal before the evidence stage. It struck the opinion, refused the defendant's amendment of the third-party notice (the amendment rested on the struck opinion, lacked a supporting affidavit and came late) and ordered her to pay 2,500 shekels in costs to each bank.
Limits. The decision is the only source read; no press coverage was found. It names no AI tool, and the court's attribution to AI rests on the invented content rather than on an admission or on the expert's account.
Reported harm
According to the court's decision, the defendant's expert evidence was struck and her amendment refused because the opinion rested on what the court found were AI-hallucinated authorities and distorted statute text, and she was ordered to pay 2,500 shekels in costs to each of two banks.
Outcome
OngoingMagistrates' Court, Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, civil file 38820-04-24, decision of 8 October 2026: the bank's request was granted and the expert opinion of 10 March 2026 was struck and removed from the file; the defendant's request to amend the third-party notice was dismissed; the defendant was ordered to pay costs of 2,500 shekels to each of the two third-party banks within 30 days, regardless of the outcome of the proceedings; the order to file witness affidavits was renewed. The underlying suit continues.
What remains unknown
- Which AI tool, if any, the expert used; the decision names none and records no account from the expert.
- Whether the defendant appeals the decision or pays the costs, and how the suit and the third-party notice are decided.
- Whether the expert faces any professional consequence.
What the evidence supports
AI involvement: supported. The court's decision finds that the heart of the expert opinion and its annexes rest on clear 'AI hallucinations': a Supreme Court ruling the court could not locate, a cited book it could not find and statutory sections quoted with text the statute does not contain. The court read that output in the filed opinion and, because of it, struck the opinion, refused the amendment that rested on it and ordered the defendant to pay costs (informed_decision_about). The attribution to AI is the court's own finding after checking the sources; no admission, tool or account by the expert is recorded.
5 claims: 5 documented. What the statuses mean
Documented The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, a lawyer acting as trustee, negligently transferred estate money to another person's account; the defendant filed a third-party notice against two banks and, on 10 March 2026, a banking expert's opinion.
Causal attribution. The decision's own account of the pleadings; the negligence claim is an allegation in a continuing suit.
- damiencharlotin.com(opens in new tab) supports · Hebrew
'התרשלה בתפקידה כנאמנת'; 'ביום 10.3.26הגישה הנתבעת 2חוות דעת'
Documented One bank asked the court to strike the opinion as resting on case law, legislation and literature invented by artificial intelligence, including a ruling that does not exist; the defendant replied that the question of AI use should be examined in cross-examination.
Causal attribution. The parties' submissions as recorded by the court.
- damiencharlotin.com(opens in new tab) supports · Hebrew
'מבוססת על פסיקה ,חקיקה וספרות פיקטיביות שהומצאו ע"י בינה מלאכותית ,ובכלל זה פסק דין שאינו קיים'; 'כאשר שאלת השימוש בבינה מלאכותית מקומה להתברר בחקירה נגדית'
Documented Checking the sources itself, the court could not locate the cited Supreme Court ruling by number or party names, found no book, article or quotation matching the cited legal text, and found that the quoted statutory sections say something else; the defendant filed no response from the expert.
Causal attribution. The court's own findings after its own check of the sources.
- damiencharlotin.com(opens in new tab) supports · Hebrew
'הליך שלא ניתן לאתרו לפי מספר או שם הצדדים'; 'מבדיקה עצמאית לא נמצא כי קיים ספר ,מאמר או ציטוט כזה'; 'מבלי שהוגשה התייחסותו של המומחה לטענות המופנות כנגד חוות דעתו ,ומחדל זה פועל לחובתה של הנתבעת'
Documented The court held that the heart of the opinion and its annexes rest on clear AI hallucinations and a distortion of the statute, that an opinion resting on AI hallucinations is a substantive defect justifying its removal before the evidence stage, and struck it from the file.
Causal attribution. The court attributes the defects to AI hallucinations; that attribution rests on the invented content, with no admission or named tool.
- damiencharlotin.com(opens in new tab) supports · Hebrew
'משנמצא כי לב חוות הדעת והנספחים המצורפים אליה נשענים על "הזיות בינה מלאכותית" מובהקות ועל עיוות מוחלט של לשון חוק שירותי תשלום'; 'הגשת חוות דעת המבוססת על הזיות של בינה מלאכותית מהווה פגם מהותי המצדיק את הוצאתה המידית מהתיק עוד לפני שלב ההוכחות'; 'ומורה על מחיקת חוות דעתו'
Documented The court refused the defendant's request to amend the third-party notice, giving as one reason that the amendment rested on the struck opinion, and ordered her to pay costs of 2,500 shekels to each of the two banks within 30 days regardless of the outcome; the decision is dated 8 October 2026.
Causal attribution. The court's orders. The refusal also rests on independent procedural grounds (no supporting affidavit, lateness, lack of good faith).
- damiencharlotin.com(opens in new tab) supports · Hebrew
'שעה שהתיקון של ההודעה לצד שלישי מבוסס על חוות דעת המומחה מטעם המודיעה ,חוות דעת שמצאתי אותה פגומה והוריתי על מחיקתה מהתיק'; 'דין הבקשה לתיקון ההודעה לצד שלישי להידחות'; 'תישא בהוצאות הבקשות לטובת הצד דים השלישיים בסך של'; '₪ 2,500לכל אחד מהם בנפרד'; 'ניתנה היום ,כ"ז תשרי תשפ"ז 08 ,אוקטובר'
Sources
1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.
- Magistrates' Court, Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, civil file 38820-04-24, decision (8 October 2026)(opens in new tab)
s1 · damiencharlotin.com · Court record · Hebrew · Inspected · 8 October 2026 · Primary
How the sources were read, and where the events happened
Read in full in Hebrew by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-16 from the copy of the decision hosted on the AI Hallucination Cases database (HTTP 200, 10 pages, text extracted with pdftotext and bidirectional-control characters removed); the English renderings in this record are the research agent's own translation, with no human translator involved. Applies to s1.
Event countries: Israel. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Israel.
The opinion was filed in, and struck by, the Magistrates' Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel. Where the parties live is not stated and is not used.
Reviewed for publication 2026-10-16: Published because the court's decision, read in full, finds that a filed expert opinion rests on AI-hallucinated authorities and distorted statute text, and on that basis strikes it, refuses the amendment built on it and orders the filing defendant to pay costs. The case is an expert witness's report excluded from evidence before trial.
People described
Defendant in a civil negligence suit over a trust payment, who had filed the expert opinion; her expert evidence was struck, her amendment refused and costs were ordered against her.
People reported harmed in this case
1 person
0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed
One person counted: the defendant who filed the opinion, whose evidence was struck, whose amendment was refused and who was ordered to pay costs. The expert is not counted because the decision orders nothing against him; the plaintiff and the banks are not harmed by the ruling.
Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.
Cite this case
Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.
APA
NOPE. (2026). Israeli court strikes a defendant's expert report it found rested on AI-hallucinated case law and orders her to pay the banks' costs. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-israel-magistrates-court-strikes-expert-report-resting-on-ai-hallucinated-case-law-costs
BibTeX
@misc{2026_israel_magistrates_court_strikes_expert_report_resting_on_ai_hallucinated_case_law_costs,
title = {Israeli court strikes a defendant's expert report it found rested on AI-hallucinated case law and orders her to pay the banks' costs},
author = {NOPE},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {AI incidents},
url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-israel-magistrates-court-strikes-expert-report-resting-on-ai-hallucinated-case-law-costs}
} Related cases
Rennes administrative court fines a claimant 500 euros for an abusive tax appeal it found manifestly written with an AI tool and too imprecise to assess
According to Gossement Avocats, which quotes the order, and the court's vice-president on France Inter, an order of 19 August 2026 (n°2508168) of the tribunal administratif de Rennes rejected a claimant’s application contesting a VAT reassessment and fined the claimant 500 euros for an abusive application. As quoted by Gossement Avocats, the order says the application had manifestly been written with an artificial intelligence tool and that its grounds lacked the most elementary details needed to assess them. The court also found it inadmissible because no prior complaint to the tax service was shown, and noted that it repeated a request with substantially the same object rejected in October 2025. The court’s vice-president cited the case on France Inter; commentators stress that AI use alone was not the basis for the fine.
Ninth Circuit fines and suspends two immigration lawyers over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and denials of AI use; immigration board follows
On 3 June 2026 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit fined immigration attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds $2,500 each and suspended both from practice before the court for six months. Briefs filed in an asylum petition for review cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to opinions that do not contain them. In a motion to correct, the attorneys called the errors typographical, and at oral argument Rounds twice said AI was not used. In their response to the court's order to show cause, they conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's unlicensed brief writers and a failure to check citations. The court said the suspension was owed to their repeated failure of candour. The Board of Immigration Appeals then suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security for six months, effective 13 June 2026, and designated that decision as a precedent on 1 October 2026.
India's Supreme Court overturns customs penalty citing apparent AI hallucinations
On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Surat imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 (about ₹425 crore) on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The trader's challenge was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on 20 January 2026. Before the Supreme Court the trader argued that judgments and articles cited in the penalty order had been generated using artificial intelligence. On 2 September 2026 a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, after checking the material, found that the order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on real cases that did not lay down the propositions attributed to them, which the court said 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'. Holding that the use of AI and reliance on this dubious material was fatal to the order, the court set aside both the penalty order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, sent the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority. The AI tool used is not named in the read reports.
Miami: scammers cloned immigration attorney Ángel Leal's face and voice with AI to defraud immigrants seeking legal help
From around October 2025, criminals used AI to clone the image, voice, name, signature and firm logo of Ángel Leal, a long-established immigration attorney in Doral, Florida. They created fake videos, look-alike websites, forged contracts and even fabricated Zoom 'immigration hearings' to persuade immigrants to pay for legal services Leal never provided. Immigrants were defrauded of money, and some believed their cases were progressing when they were not; Leal received one to two defrauded callers a day, changed his phone number, hired an anti-piracy firm that removed thousands of fake profiles and videos, and reported the fraud to local police and federal authorities.
If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.