Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Internal Action

KPMG Australia fined a partner more than A$10,000 for uploading course material to an AI tool to answer an internal AI training exam, reports say

A partner at KPMG Australia, who is also a registered company auditor, was fined more than A$10,000 of future income after uploading a training course's reference manual into an AI tool to answer a question in the firm's internal exam on AI, the Australian Financial Review reported on 15 February 2026; other outlets relaying it say the partner was also made to redo the test. According to those reports, the partner completed the mandatory AI training in July, the firm's monitoring detected the AI use in August, and an internal investigation decided the fine; the reports do not state the year of the training or the detection. The partner self-reported to Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (CA ANZ), which is investigating. KPMG said more than two dozen staff had been caught using AI in internal exams since July. The partner is not named.

AI system
Unidentified AI tool
Occurred
Event date unknown
Reported
15 February 2026
Event location
Australia
What the AI did
Communicated with the person
Reported harm
Professional HarmFinancial Loss
Whose AI use
Their own AI use
Setting
Work · Education
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 6 sources, 2 underlying accounts
5 claims: 5 reported. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: An AI tool, not named in the reports, into which a KPMG Australia partner uploaded a training course's reference manual to generate an answer to an internal exam question; KPMG's own AI-use monitoring detected the use (per the Australian Financial Review as relayed)

What Happened

The exam. According to the Australian Financial Review's report as relayed by Human Resources Director (HRD), the International Accounting Bulletin and Accounting Times, a KPMG Australia partner who is a registered company auditor completed the firm's mandatory AI training in July. The course materials recommended downloading a reference manual. KPMG's knowledge checks are open-book, but its rules prohibit uploading course materials into AI tools during testing. The partner uploaded the manual into an AI tool to generate an answer to an exam question.

Detection and penalty. KPMG's monitoring detected the use in August. After an internal investigation the firm decided the partner should forfeit more than A$10,000 of future income, and the partner was asked to redo the test. The partner self-reported to CA ANZ, which opened its own investigation. The reports do not state the year of the training or the detection; the February 2026 articles place the 28 cases KPMG found 'since July' in the current financial year.

Context. KPMG said more than two dozen staff had been caught using AI in internal exams since July; the other 27 were at or below manager level. Its chief executive said: 'Given the everyday use of these tools, some people breach our policy.' ASIC said it had confirmed the incident with KPMG but would not act until the professional body began disciplinary proceedings (Financial Times).

Reported harm

A KPMG Australia partner was fined more than A$10,000 of future income, asked to redo the test and placed under a professional-body investigation after using an AI tool in an internal exam against firm rules, according to the Australian Financial Review as relayed by other outlets.

Outcome

Ongoing

KPMG's internal investigation decided the partner should forfeit more than A$10,000 of future income, and the partner was asked to redo the test. The partner self-reported to CA ANZ, which was investigating in February 2026. ASIC said it had confirmed the incident with KPMG but would not take further action until the professional body started disciplinary proceedings (Financial Times via the Irish Times). No CA ANZ outcome was found in a search on 23 October 2026.

What remains unknown

  • The year of the training and of the detection: the February 2026 reports say July and August without a year and place KPMG's cases in the current financial year.
  • Which AI tool the partner used and what it generated.
  • When the fine was decided or applied, and the outcome of the CA ANZ investigation.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The harm is the employer's fine in response to the partner's own prohibited use of an AI tool, reviewed as a consequential response. According to the AFR as relayed by HRD and the International Accounting Bulletin, the partner uploaded the course's reference manual into an AI tool to generate an answer to an exam question; KPMG's monitoring detected that use and the firm fined the partner for it. The tool and its output are not described further.

5 claims: 5 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported A KPMG Australia partner who is a registered company auditor completed the firm's mandatory AI training and, against firm rules for its open-book knowledge checks, uploaded the course's reference manual into an AI tool to generate an answer to an exam question.

Causal attribution. The AFR's account, relayed by HRD, the International Accounting Bulletin and the Financial Times; the firm is the apparent source of the facts. The AI tool is not named.

  • hcamag.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The partner, a registered company auditor, completed mandatory AI training in July. Training materials recommended downloading a reference manual as part of the course. The individual breached firm rules by uploading the document into an AI tool to generate an answer to an exam question.'; 'The firm said its knowledge checks are open-book following internal training courses, allowing personnel to download materials but prohibiting the uploading of those materials into AI tools during testing.'
  • internationalaccountingbulletin.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'However, the partner breached KPMG’s rules by uploading that reference document into an AI tool to answer an exam question.'
  • irishtimes.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The unnamed partner was forced to redo the test after uploading training materials into an AI platform to help answer questions on the use of the fast-evolving technology.'
Reported KPMG's monitoring detected the AI use in August, and the firm said it had used its own AI detection tools to find staff using AI in internal exams.

Causal attribution. The AFR's account as relayed; how the monitoring works is not described.

Reported After an internal investigation, KPMG decided the partner should forfeit more than A$10,000 of future income, and the partner was asked to redo the test.

Causal attribution. The fine is the firm's response to the partner's AI use, as reported by the AFR and its relays.

  • afr.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'including a partner who will be fined more than $10,000 for using the technology in a training course about AI.'
  • internationalaccountingbulletin.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The unnamed partner was asked to redo the test.'; 'Following an internal investigation, KPMG decided the partner should be fined more than $10,000 of future income.'
  • hcamag.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'A partner at KPMG Australia will forfeit more than $10,000 in future income after using artificial intelligence to answer a question in an internal training exam about artificial intelligence (AI)'
Reported The partner self-reported to Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, which opened its own investigation; ASIC said it had confirmed the incident with KPMG but would not take further action until the professional body started disciplinary proceedings.

Causal attribution. The self-report and CA ANZ investigation come from the AFR's account; ASIC's position is the Financial Times's report. No CA ANZ outcome is reported.

  • hcamag.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The partner also self-reported to Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, which has launched its own investigation.'
  • accountingtimes.com.au(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The partner who cheated self-reported to CA ANZ, which is currently investigating the case.'
  • irishtimes.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the corporate regulator, said it had confirmed the incident with KPMG but would not take further action until the accountants’ professional trade body started disciplinary proceedings against the partner.'
Reported KPMG said more than two dozen staff had been caught using AI tools in internal exams since July, the others at or below manager level, and its chief executive said some people breach its policy given the everyday use of these tools.

Causal attribution. Context from KPMG's statements; no individual consequence is reported for the other staff.

  • theguardian.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'More than two dozen KPMG Australia staff have been caught using AI tools to cheat on internal exams since July, the company said'; '“Given the everyday use of these tools, some people breach our policy. We take it seriously when they do.'
  • accountingtimes.com.au(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The other 27 staff are at or below a manager level.'
  • irishtimes.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'More than two dozen staff have been caught over this financial year using AI tools for internal exams, according to KPMG.'

Sources

6 sources inspected, from 2 underlying accounts. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23; HTTP 200 but paywalled: only the headline and the first two paragraphs are readable. Original report; the other outlets relay it. Applies to s1.

Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23; HTTP 200, full text read. Relays the AFR report ('according to reporting by Australian Financial Review') with the training, detection and fine details. Applies to s2.

Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23; HTTP 200, full text read. Relays the AFR report ('the Australian Financial Review (AFR) reported'). Applies to s3.

Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23; HTTP 200, full text read. Relays the AFR report ('As first reported by The Australian Financial Review'). Applies to s4.

Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23; HTTP 200, full text read. Relays the AFR report and quotes KPMG's chief executive. Applies to s5.

Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-23; HTTP 200, full text read. Financial Times copy republished by the Irish Times; credits the AFR with first reporting the fine and adds ASIC's statement. Applies to s6.

Event countries: Australia. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Unknown.

The employer is KPMG Australia and the exam was its internal Australian training (AFR; HRD); the professional body is Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand and the regulator ASIC. No court is involved. Where the partner lives is not stated.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-23: Published as a consequential-response case: an employer's fine of a partner for prohibited AI use in an internal exam, reported by the Australian Financial Review and relayed with the training, detection and penalty details. All facts rest on that one report chain plus KPMG's statements; the partner is not named.

People described

A KPMG Australia partner and registered company auditor (not named in the sources)

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the partner who used the AI tool and was fined (AFR as relayed by HRD, the International Accounting Bulletin and Accounting Times). The other 27 staff KPMG caught are not counted because no individual consequence is reported for them.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#workplace#internal-exam#ai-policy-breach#fine#accounting#australia

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). KPMG Australia fined a partner more than A$10,000 for uploading course material to an AI tool to answer an internal AI training exam, reports say. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-kpmg-australia-partner-fined-for-uploading-course-manual-to-ai-tool-in-internal-ai-training-exam

BibTeX

@misc{2026_kpmg_australia_partner_fined_for_uploading_course_manual_to_ai_tool_in_internal_ai_training_exam,
  title = {KPMG Australia fined a partner more than A\$10,000 for uploading course material to an AI tool to answer an internal AI training exam, reports say},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-kpmg-australia-partner-fined-for-uploading-course-manual-to-ai-tool-in-internal-ai-training-exam}
}

Related cases

Medium Unidentified AI tool

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.

Medium ChatGPT

Brasília labour court upholds the for-cause dismissal of a manager it found used ChatGPT to alter a delivery photo to contest an iFood customer's complaint

In a judgment of 30 July 2026, the 2nd Labour Court of Brasília (Regional Labour Court of the 10th Region) upheld the dismissal for cause, on 19 March 2026, of a manager hired in June 2024. The employer said he had used artificial intelligence to falsify photos of orders on the iFood delivery app. A witness told the court she saw him use ChatGPT to alter a photo of an incomplete order, in which two of four soft drinks had been sent, so that it appeared complete, and use it to contest the customer's complaint to iFood support. The judge found this an act of dishonesty and misconduct that broke the trust required of a manager, rejected his claim that the dismissal was fabricated in retaliation for a claim he had filed the day before, dismissed all his claims, denied severance items and ordered him to pay 10% counsel fees, suspended because he was granted free legal aid. The legal news site Migalhas reported the judgment on 3 August 2026. No appeal is reported.

High Unidentified AI tool

SDT strikes solicitor Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after AI-generated false citations in his SRA defence

On 25 August 2026 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after finding proved that his 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI — including a non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502' and a miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' that is actually an intellectual-property case — and that his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors. The tribunal said it would have struck him off on that allegation alone; the parallel ground was his January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. This is the SDT's first case on a lawyer's use of AI, per the SRA's counsel.

Medium Unidentified voice-cloning tool

Italy: Fideuram chairman Paolo Molesini is deceived by a WhatsApp impersonation of Intesa Sanpaolo's CEO and a phone call in the reportedly AI-cloned voice of a lawyer he knew into ordering about 95 million euros of transfers; at least 36 million remain missing and he resigned on 12 March 2026, weeks later

On 23 February 2026 Paolo Molesini, then chairman of Fideuram (the private-banking subsidiary of Intesa Sanpaolo), received a WhatsApp message from an unknown number from someone claiming to be Intesa's chief executive Carlo Messina, announcing a confidential acquisition that had to be executed through Fideuram. The same day a caller presenting as a lawyer of A&O Shearman whom Molesini knew, whose voice ANSA, Il Fatto Quotidiano and Corriere della Sera, reporting from the Milan court papers, describe as created with artificial intelligence (today.it, which also cites the seizure decree, writes that the court papers do not yet answer whether the voice was imitated), had him sign a confidentiality agreement and sent eleven payment instructions; Fideuram's treasury head was separately contacted by someone posing as Fideuram's CEO. Between 23 and 25 February eleven transfers totalling about 95 million euros went to accounts in Portugal and at Bank of China; the bank's alarm systems and the Milan prosecutors recovered about 40-42 million from China and 13 million seized in Portugal, leaving at least 36 million (39.5 million per the court papers) missing after conversion into cryptocurrency. Molesini, who Corriere writes is not under investigation, resigned as chairman on 12 March 2026, which Fideuram announced as being for personal reasons; a 48-year-old Israeli citizen is under investigation as a member of the gang.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents