{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-17T11:01:30.062Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"fraud-sanction-annulled","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2026-leiden-law-student-thesis-sanction-over-ai-invented-references-annulled-by-council-of-state","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Bij beslissing van 29 januari 2026 heeft de examencommissie de scriptie van'; 'tot en met 28 januari 2027 uitgesloten van deelname aan het bachelorscriptietraject en enig ander tentamen van een door de faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid verzorgde opleiding'; 'De examencommissie heeft deze sanctie opgelegd omdat in het verwijzingsapparaat van zijn bachelorscriptie een aantal niet bestaande bronnen is opgenomen. Volgens de examencommissie duiden deze fictieve bronvermeldingen op ongeoorloofd gebruik van generatieve AI en dus fraude.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'De examencommissie beschouwde dit als fraude.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 29 January 2026 the Leiden law faculty's exam board declared the student's bachelor thesis invalid and excluded him until 28 January 2027 from the thesis track and any exam in the faculty's programmes, because, in its view, non-existent sources in the references indicated unauthorised use of generative AI and therefore fraud.","causal_attribution":"The decisions are recorded in the ruling; the PONT summary restates them."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Hij heeft niet zelf bronnen verzonnen, maar de AI-tool die hij heeft gebruikt bij het opstellen van het verwijzingsapparaat heeft niet alle bronnen uit het concept van zijn scriptie correct overgenomen.'; 'Het gaat om zeven foutieve verwijzingen - waarvan één tweemaal - op een totaal van zesendertig voetnoten met bronverwijzingen.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The student stated that he had not invented sources himself and that the AI tool he used to prepare the references had not carried over all sources from his draft correctly, affecting seven references in footnotes of the final version, one of them twice, out of 36 footnotes with references.","causal_attribution":"The ruling documents that he made this argument; the count of errors is stated by the court."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'heeft toegelicht dat hij voor zijn scriptie AI heeft gebruikt voor een spellingcontrole en om zijn bronnenlijst te controleren en te ordenen'; 'toegelicht welke bronnen door AI zijn verdraaid, zoals verkeerde jaartallen of voorletters van auteurs, of door AI zijn bedacht'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Sommige bronnen bevatten verkeerde jaartallen of auteursnamen, andere waren door AI verzonnen.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"He had used AI to spell-check the thesis and to check and order its reference list, and the AI distorted some references (for example wrong years or author initials) and invented others.","causal_attribution":"The student's own account; the appeals board and the Council of State found it plausible, but no examination of the tool's output is described."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Bij beslissing van 4 maart 2026 heeft het CBE het door'; 'heeft voldoende aannemelijk gemaakt dat hij met het oog op het opmaken van zijn bronnenlijst gebruik heeft gemaakt van generatieve AI. Dat is een geoorloofde vorm van AI-gebruik. Dat daarbij niet-bestaande bronnen in het verwijzingsapparaat zijn terechtgekomen, komt evenwel voor zijn rekening.'; 'voor de duur van een half jaar een passender maatregel'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 4 March 2026 the university's appeals board for examinations upheld his administrative appeal, finding that he had plausibly shown he used generative AI to compile his reference list, a permitted use, that the non-existent sources were his responsibility, and that a half-year exclusion was a more fitting measure.","causal_attribution":"Recorded in the ruling."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Bij beslissing van 6 mei 2026 heeft de examencommissie de scriptie van'; 'tot en met 29 juli 2026 uitgesloten van deelname aan het bachelorscriptietraject en enig ander tentamen'; 'Bij beslissing van 8 juli 2026 heeft het CBE het door'; 'ingestelde administratief beroep ongegrond verklaard'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"On 6 May 2026 the exam board again declared the thesis invalid and excluded him until 29 July 2026, and on 8 July 2026 the appeals board dismissed his appeal against that decision.","causal_attribution":"Recorded in the ruling."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Datum uitspraak: 14 oktober 2026'; 'al deze juiste bronnen in een eerdere versie van de scriptie, vóór het gebruik van AI, in verkorte vorm zijn terug te vinden'; 'heeft het CBE onvoldoende aannemelijk gemaakt dat sprake is van meer dan alleen een onzorgvuldigheid'; 'alsnog worden beoordeeld, met inachtneming van wat de Afdeling heeft overwogen'; 'Het is aan de examinator of, en, zo ja, welke gevolgen hij in dat kader aan de geconstateerde onzorgvuldigheid verbindt voor het cijfer.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'De Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State geeft hem gelijk.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 14 October 2026 the Council of State found that the appeals board had not made it plausible that there was more than carelessness, so fraud was not established beyond reasonable doubt; it noted that the correct sources were in an earlier version written before AI was used, annulled the decisions of 8 July and 6 May 2026, ordered that the thesis still be assessed, and left it to the examiner whether the carelessness affects the grade.","causal_attribution":"The ruling is the decision itself."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'te wijten is dat hij na het gebruik van AI niet nogmaals zelfstandig alle bronvermeldingen in de voetnoten heeft gecontroleerd'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'De Raad van State stelt expliciet dat hij de bronvermeldingen na het gebruik van AI zelfstandig had moeten controleren.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The Council of State held that the student was at fault for not independently checking all the references again after using AI.","causal_attribution":"The court's finding; it bears on the student's own share in the errors."}],"effects":[{"label":"bachelor thesis declared invalid and exclusion from the thesis track and faculty exams, later annulled","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:6088","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-17 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Full text of the Council of State ruling 202602163/1/A2 of 14 October 2026 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:6088) from the rechtspraak.nl open data service, HTTP 200; the student is anonymised in the ruling.","independence_group":"raad-van-state-ruling-202602163"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://privacy-web.nl/samenvatting/ai-verzint-bronnen-in-scriptie-raad-van-state-ziet-geen-fraude/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-17 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. PONT Data & Privacy editorial summary of the same ruling, 15 October 2026, HTTP 200, full text read; it derives from the ruling and is not independent of it.","independence_group":"raad-van-state-ruling-202602163"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["education","justice"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool the student used; the ruling does not name it.","Whether the exclusion orders kept him from any particular exam or delayed his studies, and what grade the thesis eventually received.","The exact wording of the incorrect references and how the examiner discovered them."],"geography":{"basis":"The sanctioning exam board belongs to the Faculty of Law of Leiden University and the appeal was decided by the Council of State, both in the Netherlands. The ruling withholds the student's place of residence, so that field is left unknown.","court_countries":["NL"],"event_countries":["NL"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published on the Council of State's ruling of 14 October 2026: the student's explanation, found plausible by the university appeals board and the court, is that a generative AI tool he used to order his reference list distorted or invented seven references; the exam board treated those references as evidence of AI-enabled fraud, invalidated the thesis and excluded him from exams, and the court annulled the sanction because only carelessness had been shown.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-17"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Council of State ruling records the student's explanation that the AI tool he used to prepare his footnote references did not carry over all sources from his draft correctly and that it distorted some references (wrong years or author initials) and invented others; the university's appeals board found he had plausibly shown he used generative AI for his reference list, and the Council of State found his explanation plausible, noting that the correct sources were in an earlier version written before he used AI. The exam board itself attributed the fictitious references to generative AI and sanctioned him for them. The AI tool's output, returned to the student and kept in his thesis, is what the sanction was based on.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Leiden law student's thesis invalidated and exams barred over references he says an AI tool distorted or invented; Council of State annuls fraud sanction","summary":"A law student at Leiden University used a generative AI tool to spell-check his bachelor thesis and to check and order its reference list. Seven of the thesis's footnote references (one of them appearing twice, out of 36 footnotes with references) were wrong in the final version; according to his explanation, the tool had distorted some of them, for example with wrong years or author initials, and invented others. On 29 January 2026 the faculty's exam board declared the thesis invalid and excluded him until 28 January 2027 from the thesis track and every exam in the faculty's programmes, reasoning that the fictitious references indicated unauthorised use of generative AI and therefore fraud. The university's appeals board for examinations found in March 2026 that he had plausibly shown he used generative AI to prepare his reference list, which it called a permitted use, but held him responsible for the non-existent sources; the exam board then re-imposed the invalidation with an exclusion until 29 July 2026, and the appeals board upheld that in July. On 14 October 2026 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Raad van State) found his explanation plausible, held that no more than carelessness had been shown, and annulled the sanction; the thesis must now be graded, and the examiner may take the incorrect references into account in the grade.","incidentDate":"2026-01-29","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-14","aiSystem":"An unnamed generative AI tool that the student used to spell-check his bachelor thesis and to check and order its reference list, according to the Council of State ruling","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI writing tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The exam board declared the student's thesis invalid and excluded him from the thesis track and the faculty's exams, first until January 2027 and then until 29 July 2026, over references that according to his accepted explanation an AI tool had distorted or invented; the Council of State annulled the sanction on 14 October 2026.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the appellant student, who used the AI tool himself (ruling, paragraphs 1 to 6).","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"NL","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:6088","primarySourceLabel":"Raad van State, ruling 202602163/1/A2 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:6088), 14 October 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-17T03:05:14.201173+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-17T03:05:14.201173+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["academic-integrity","thesis","non-existent-references","fraud-sanction-annulled","netherlands","administrative-court","own-use"]}]}