Event date unknownRussiaUnidentified legal research tool
Russia's Court for Intellectual Property Rights fined an individual entrepreneur from Udmurtia 5,000 roubles for contempt of court after finding that part of the 12 references to case law in his cassation appeal, including one said to be a Supreme Court position, pointed to court acts that do not exist or attributed conclusions to them, the court's press service told RIA Novosti on 27 August 2026. Rossiyskaya Gazeta reports that the entrepreneur explained he had prepared the appeal with an AI-based service that selected the case law, and that his side argued he had no legal education and could not check the references; the court rejected the argument that the errors were technical. The date of the ruling and the AI service are not reported.
Core + contextual relations Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources · Added 23/10/2026
Event date unknownEvent location unknownUnidentified AI tool
The Itzehoe police directorate reported on 14 March 2024 that the Heide criminal police were dealing with two cases in which older people fell for fake websites where supposedly genuine celebrities promoted investments. In one, a seemingly genuine actor recommended an investment in a deceptively real interview, which the police say was created with artificial intelligence. Links on the sites led the victims, a pensioner and an older married couple, to a supposed trading platform; after friendly callers gained remote access to their computers, the couple transferred several thousand euros on top of the first payment. No gains were paid and the money was lost. The other case, a fake news article, is not described as AI-made.
Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 20/10/2026
Event date unknownEvent location unknownUnidentified video tool (suspected)
The Ludwigshafen police directorate reported on 3 April 2025 that an older man from the Rhein-Pfalz district had seen a video online of a talk show on the German broadcaster ZDF in which large stock-market gains through a cryptocurrency were promised. The police say the video was presumably generated by AI. He then phoned a supposed personal financial adviser and over six months transferred about 27,000 euros to foreign accounts. He became suspicious when the promised gains were not paid out despite repeated requests and further fees were demanded instead. The police do not say who appeared in the video or how they reached their view.
Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 20/10/2026
May 2026Event location unknownUnidentified AI tool
The Gera regional police reported on 18 June 2026 that an older man in Altenburg, Thuringia, had fallen victim to investment fraud. According to the police, he found an online advert made with artificial intelligence that showed a well-known politician and promised high returns. After he contacted the fraudsters in mid-May, he gave them personal data and remote access to his computer; they took control of his online banking and made several transfers totalling about 42,000 euros. The police say about 28,000 euros was secured; the investigation continues.
Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 20/10/2026
21 Oct 2025 to 3 Apr 2026United StatesCoCounsel
In a published opinion of 3 April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed the briefs a lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act had filed for an indigent defendant appealing a sentencing enhancement in a drug-trafficking case. The court noticed that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results' and found three quotations that appear in no legal authority and misstatements of two precedents. The lawyer admitted that a staff member had used Westlaw's CoCounsel to create the first draft, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the false quotations came from artificial intelligence he did not verify. The court denied him compensation for the appeal, referred the opinion for possible disciplinary proceedings and to the Kentucky Bar Association, and by separate order removed him, locked his briefs and ordered replacement counsel to file new ones, which it said further delayed resolution of the defendant's appeal. The court acknowledged his candour and his 40 years without discipline.
Core + contextual relations Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 19/10/2026
Aug 2026United StatesUnidentified document-analysis tool
In a memorandum of decision issued in early August 2026, a Connecticut Superior Court judge found that a motion for default and a notice filed on 24 July 2026 by a self-represented plaintiff, in a suit against a healthcare provider over access to records, carried text in tiny white type that was invisible to a human reader but legible to software. The concealed text told any AI model reviewing the filing to make its output agree with the filing and to work toward reversing the Chief Clerk's denial of his default request. After the court gave notice of a sanctions hearing, he hid further messages in later filings, which he said were jokes. The court treated the first instruction as a prompt injection, did not believe his explanation that he was auditing the court's use of AI, and rescinded his ability to file electronically, so that future filings must be made on paper at the clerk's office; Ars Technica reports that no monetary penalty was imposed. The court said the Connecticut Judicial Branch does not use AI to review or decide filings and that the motion was denied on its merits from a printed copy, so the hidden text affected no ruling. The plaintiff told Reuters, according to Ars Technica, that his intent was to audit the court.
AI relation unknown Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 18/10/2026
May 2026BrazilGalileu
In May 2026 a judge of the 3rd Labour Court of Parauapebas, in the Brazilian state of Pará, fined two lawyers about R$84,000 after text in white font on a white background was found in a document they filed for a worker in a labour claim. According to the sentence as reported by G1, the hidden text was detected while the judgment was being drafted with Galileu, a generative AI tool the labour courts use to help judges and staff draft sentences, and its evident intention was to make the AI produce a superficial defence or a compromised draft judgment. The judge called the technique prompt injection. The lawyers said they disagreed with the decision and that there was never any command to manipulate the judge's decision, describing the text as an attempt to protect their client from the AI; one of them said she did not work on labour cases. In October 2026 the regional labour court announced that a Connecticut Superior Court judge had cited the decision when sanctioning a litigant for misuse of AI.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution disputed · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 16/10/2026
2026SpainUnidentified AI drafting tool
The Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) fined a lawyer 420 euros for breaching the duty of truthfulness and good faith, after an appeal the lawyer filed contained 48 citations of Supreme Court judgments and a report of the General Council of the Judiciary that did not exist. According to the court's order, as described in its press release of 13 February 2026, the lawyer used a general-purpose AI tool to draft the appeal and did not check a single citation against the free public case-law database; the court's documentalist verified that the references were false. The court referred the matter to the lawyer's bar association for possible disciplinary action and set the fine at about half the annual cost of a legal-specific AI tool, taking into account that the lawyer admitted the facts and expressed remorse. The court had first flagged the citations in its judgment dismissing the appeal, reported on 5 January 2026, which opened a separate proceeding. The lawyer told the court of comments and mockery from colleagues after the case became public.
Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 16/10/2026
Jun 2026 to Sept 2026GermanyUnidentified image tool (suspected)
The Gauting police inspection in Bavaria, Germany, reported on 2 October 2026 that a man had filed a complaint after realising he had been the victim of investment fraud. According to the police report, he said he had clicked on an advertising banner for an investment on the website of a large German news magazine, and the police say he was presumably lured by the combination of an AI-generated image of a well-known television presenter with a supposedly lucrative investment strategy. After he entered his email address and phone number on the trading platform, four women callers contacted him from 4 June 2026 until September and led him to make four payments totalling more than 25,000 euros to accounts in Bulgaria, Malta and Lithuania. His bank could not reverse the transfers because he had authorised them himself. The police do not say how they concluded that the image was AI-generated, and the presenter is not named in the police report.
Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 16/10/2026
1 Sept 2026Event location unknownUnidentified AI drafting tool
In a pending appeal against a decision of Austria's data protection authority, the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) found that the appellant had filed hundreds of pages of statements and attachments within less than four months that were obviously created exclusively with large-language-model text programs and not labelled as AI-generated. In a decision of 1 September 2026 the court imposed a EUR 200 penalty for wanton use of the court, holding that the AI-assisted filings repeated the same complaints, brought no new facts or evidence and ignored the EU labelling duty for AI-generated content. The court announced it as the first such penalty for AI submissions. The appellant is anonymised and the appellant's response is not reported.
Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 13/10/2026
Event date unknownSpainUnidentified voice-cloning tool
The Guardia Civil in La Rioja said on 25 August 2026 that it had solved a 'relative in trouble' fraud in which the criminals used artificial intelligence to clone the voice of the victim's daughter. According to the force's account as reported by the newspaper La Rioja and Radio Arnedo, the victim received WhatsApp messages from an unknown number by someone posing as the daughter and asking for urgent money; when the victim called that number to check, a voice that sounded like the daughter answered, and the victim transferred 9,980.25 euros. Investigators of the Guardia Civil's technology team established that the voice had been generated with AI tools. Urgent coordination with the banks froze the funds in the destination account and the full amount was returned to the victim; Radio Arnedo and ActualidadRiojaBaja report that the presumed perpetrator was identified and investigated.
Core concern Low reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 11/10/2026
Event date unknownUnited Kingdom, GeorgiaUnidentified video tool
A man in his 30s from East Anglia, England, told the Guardian (pseudonym used) that he watched a video of broadcaster Ben Fogle apparently promoting cryptocurrency trading on a site called AdmiralsFX, entered his details, was called by what turned out to be a Tbilisi call centre, paid a £250 buy-in and within a month had handed over £27,000, about a year's salary. The Guardian describes the clip as a deepfake, a digitally doctored video Fogle had publicly warned about in spring 2024. The account was published in March 2025 as part of a Guardian, SVT and OCCRP investigation of a leak from the Georgian operation, which the Guardian says duped at least 6,179 people and whose victims frequently cited the deepfake ads as the reason they went ahead.
Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 09/10/2026
Jun 2025FranceUnidentified image and video tool
A retired woman in her eighties living in Pont-à-Mousson (Meurthe-et-Moselle, France) responded, in summer 2025 according to Le Parisien and Capital, to an online advertisement in which AI-generated likenesses of Emmanuel Macron and Bernard Arnault promoted a lucrative investment platform. A supposed financial adviser then called her, she invested 5,000 euros, received several hundred euros of 'interest', and reinvested repeatedly until the advertisement and the site disappeared. L'Est Républicain (7 June 2026) and Capital put the loss at 10,000 euros; Le Parisien, citing ICI and L'Est Républicain, reports 25,000 euros, all her savings. The Pont-à-Mousson police station says an investigation was opened and that it receives three to five complaints a week for this kind of fraud. The account rests on the police station's warning as reported by the regional press, which describes the advertisement as AI-generated; the advertisement itself was not examined by the outlets and the quoted police statements do not mention AI.
Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 07/10/2026
3 Sept 2026 to 25 Sept 2026BrazilUnidentified case-analysis tool
On 25 September 2026 Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) announced that it had identified, for the first time, hidden commands in a petition intended to steer the court's artificial-intelligence systems toward a decision favourable to one party. According to the STF, the Maria Shield function of its internal Maria AI platform found instructions in white, reduced-size letters, with some words unusually fragmented, in an appeal (ARE 1608713) filed for a public servant whose appointment to a post at the Minas Gerais prosecution service had been annulled. The rapporteur's vote, presented to the First Panel in a virtual session beginning that day, records the detection, states that his office does not use AI to analyse cases, orders the episode certified in the record and communicated to the bar association (OAB) and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF), and applies a fine of two minimum wages for breach of the duty of procedural loyalty (Code of Civil Procedure, article 77, IV). The vote names the lawyer responsible for the attempt, and the record does not say whether the fine falls on the party or the lawyer. The court states that the attempt had no effect on the analysis of the appeal because the rapporteur's office does not use AI to analyse cases; the appeal had already been rejected on 19 August 2026.
AI relation unknown Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 07/10/2026
Event date unknownEstoniaUnidentified AI writing tool
According to Delfi Ärileht and ERR (both 26 June 2026), complainants who went to the Tallinn Administrative Court to contest a felling permit sent the court a document that cited scientific work on the effects of clear-cutting. The court found that the Estonian scientists named in the references do not exist and that the studies could not be found. It asked how the document had been produced, gave the complainants the chance to submit the cited works, and warned of a fine for attempting to mislead the court. The complainants replied that using AI is not forbidden and that they had not meant to mislead the court. The court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine others 50 euros each, saying complainants are responsible for the accuracy of what they submit. Delfi Ärileht reports that the Tallinn Circuit Court agreed and that the Supreme Court declined the case that week, so the fines are in force. No report names the tool or says which complainant used it.
Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 05/10/2026
Event date unknownSpainUnidentified image tool
According to a Policía Nacional statement relayed by Europa Press, El Comercio and La Nueva España on 28 August 2026, police in Langreo are investigating the creation and sharing of fake images made with AI tools from real photographs of young women. The photographs were taken from their social media profiles and altered to make them appear naked without their consent, and the images were then shared through a WhatsApp group. The investigation began when one of the women reported that an image of her was circulating in which she appeared naked although the original photograph showed her clothed; she gave investigators both versions. Police have identified 15 possible victims, 13 of whom have filed complaints, and have identified a suspect and reported the facts to the judicial authority. El Comercio reports that the suspect belongs to the victims' circle of friends. The investigation remains open to establish whether more people are affected.
Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 05/10/2026
Event date unknownItalyUnidentified image tool
Corriere Adriatico reported on 1 October 2026 that a 66-year-old pensioner in Fano answered his landline to a caller posing as a police inspector, who said his car was involved in a jewellery-shop robbery and that he had to check his jewellery at home to avoid legal trouble. The call moved to a video call in which the caller had the Polizia di Stato emblem on screen, which the paper says was created with artificial intelligence. The man showed his gold jewellery piece by piece; while he was kept on the phone, an accomplice came to the door and took all of it, reportedly worth a few thousand euros. He realised it was a scam shortly afterwards and alerted the Carabinieri, who are investigating.
Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 01/10/2026
Event date unknownItalyUnidentified video tool
CentroPagina reported on 28 September 2026 that on two separate occasions in Fano and Fossombrone (Marche), fraudsters used a video call modified with artificial intelligence, showing a face and the Carabinieri emblem on screen. A 70-year-old man in Fano was told by a caller posing as a Carabinieri officer that his car was involved in a jewellery-shop robbery and that he had to show his gold to clear himself. On the video call he showed his jewellery one piece at a time; while he was kept on the phone, an accomplice came to the door and took gold jewellery and cash, reportedly a few thousand euros. An 80-year-old man in Fossombrone was targeted the same way and lost jewellery worth a few thousand euros; he did not make the two online transfers totalling 15,000 euros that the fraudsters then demanded as bail. The victims alerted the Carabinieri, who are seeking those responsible.
Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 01/10/2026
23 Feb 2026 to 25 Feb 2026ItalyUnidentified voice-cloning tool
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.
Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 8 sources, 5 underlying accounts · Added 30/09/2026
19 Aug 2026FranceUnidentified AI tool
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.
Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources · Added 29/09/2026