Mar 2024United Kingdom, NigeriaUnidentified AI tool
A dietitian on the UK register who was in Nigeria at the time was interviewed online in March 2024 for an entry-level oncology dietitian post at an NHS hospital in Surrey, according to reports of a Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service decision. The reports say the interviewers noticed that she repeatedly asked for clinical questions to be repeated and then gave fluent, textbook answers while her eyes moved as if reading from another screen, and that all of them came to the view she was using artificial intelligence; a case study she then completed was also judged AI-assisted, and her answers were later run through an AI check with striking similarities. She denied using AI, saying she habitually repeated questions and was looking at her router. The tribunal panel found that she used AI in the interview, that this was cheating and dishonesty, and ordered that she be struck off the register, with an interim suspension of 18 months during which she may appeal. Nigerian outlets, citing the Daily Mail, said the tool was ChatGPT; the local report describes it only as AI. The decision date and any appeal are not stated in the sources read.
Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 01/11/2026
Event date unknownChinaUnidentified video tool
Police in Nanchong, Sichuan, said on 29 October 2026 that their investigation found a man had secretly filmed or stolen image material of several female colleagues, commissioned other people to make AI face-swap obscene videos from it, and spread the videos for profit through social platforms in and outside China and a QQ group he ran, charging entry fees and selling goods. According to the police, a female colleague or colleagues (the account does not say how many) discovered what had happened and called the police; he was traced, caught and placed in administrative detention, and the case remains under investigation. The police did not say how they established that the videos were AI-made, how many colleagues were depicted or when the conduct took place.
Core concern High reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 31/10/2026
16 Sept 2026UkraineUnidentified image tool
A district court in Ukraine's Poltava region fined the mother of a school pupil on 22 October 2026 after finding she had failed in her duty to bring up her son, who, according to the case materials as reported, used a neural network on 16 September 2026 to generate fake nude photos of his teacher from her image without her consent and sent one to a classmate. The mother admitted the offence and confirmed her son had made such images, saying he sent only one to a classmate and that she did not know how the photos spread further. The court imposed an administrative fine of 850 hryvnias plus court fees. The report does not name the AI tool, and no statement from the teacher is reported.
Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 30/10/2026
12 Oct 2026BrazilUnidentified AI tool
A labour court in Castro, Paraná (9th Region Labour Court), annulled a court-appointed expert's report after the employer, in a motion for clarification, reported a hidden sentence at the foot of a page instructing artificial intelligence to contest the report only superficially and not to question the files it cited, according to Diário de Justiça. The expert confirmed the text but said it came from teaching material about AI and was inserted by accident; the court's IT section concluded that it had been formatted deliberately to be invisible. The judge said AI had not been used to write the judgment and that the text did not directly influence it, but annulled the report, later submissions and the judgment, ordered a new examination by another expert without AI tools, fined the expert 5% of the value of the case for bad-faith litigation, cancelled the expert's fees and removed the expert from the court's register. The decision, dated 12 October 2026, can be challenged.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution disputed · 1 source · Added 30/10/2026
2026FinlandUnidentified AI tool
Humppila, a municipality of about 2,000 residents in Kanta-Häme, Finland, abolished its administrative director and technical director posts on the new mayor's proposal, which, according to Helsingin Sanomat as relayed by Maaseudun Tulevaisuus, covered 150,000 euros of the municipality's savings need; Yle reports that the two office holders were dismissed in spring 2026 and that the abolitions followed the municipality's need to improve its weak finances. Maaseudun Tulevaisuus, relaying an interview first published by Helsingin Sanomat, reports that according to the mayor both directors' tasks are now done with the help of AI, and quotes the mayor as saying the writing of new appendices to the administrative regulations was done with AI in a day. A municipal statement said the main aim of its reforms was not to increase AI use or shrink the administration but to secure services. The former administrative director told Iltalehti the abolition of the post was unlawful, saying the tasks have not ceased and that AI cannot bear official responsibility or form a ground for dismissal; the mayor says the process was lawful. According to the former director, the abolition was brought into the change negotiations as the only option without the five days' written advance notice the law requires, and the lawyers' union Juristiliitto assessed the negotiations as at least careless and presented the municipality with a claim for full compensation. The former director appealed to the Hämeenlinna Administrative Court in spring 2026 and reports filing a criminal complaint with Häme police on 9 September 2026, which police confirmed receiving without deciding whether to investigate. Finland's Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman opened an own-initiative inquiry into the use of AI in the municipality's official work, asking what tasks were given to AI and how lawful decision-making and official responsibility are ensured. No tool is named, and no court or Ombudsman finding is reported.
AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources · Added 28/10/2026
1 Mar 2023 to 22 Jun 2023Event location unknownChatGPT
In a passenger's personal-injury suit against the airline Avianca in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, an opposition brief filed on 1 March 2023 cited judicial opinions that did not exist. The court found that the lawyer who did the research had used ChatGPT, which fabricated the cases, and that when he asked the chatbot whether one of them was real it replied that it had supplied real authorities that could be found on legal databases. On 22 June 2023 the court found bad faith by the two lawyers, based on their conduct after the citations were questioned, and imposed a USD 5,000 penalty jointly on them and their firm, together with letters to the client and to each judge falsely named as an author of the fake opinions.
Core + contextual relations Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources · Added 28/10/2026
2019BelgiumGoogle Assistant
On 10 July 2019 the Belgian public broadcaster VRT NWS reported that it had listened to more than a thousand audio excerpts recorded by Google Home smart speakers and the Google Assistant phone app, passed to it by someone working for a Google subcontractor that transcribes Dutch-language recordings to improve Google's speech recognition. VRT said 153 of the excerpts were conversations in which "Okay Google" was clearly not said, and that it could hear addresses and other sensitive information, which let it find and visit people in Flanders who recognised their own or relatives' voices. Google said one of its language reviewers had leaked confidential Dutch audio data, and explained that its devices rarely have "false accepts", when background noise or words are interpreted as the hotword. Google suspended human review of Assistant audio in Europe, and the Hamburg data protection authority began an urgency procedure under Article 66 of the GDPR to stop the reviews for three months, according to TechCrunch.
Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources · Added 28/10/2026
Event date unknownEvent location unknownUnidentified video tool (suspected)
The Pleven District Prosecutor's Office in Bulgaria announced on 12 June 2026 that it was leading an investigation after a woman living in Pleven province reported an investment fraud. According to the prosecutors, she had been misled by a report broadcast on a social network, probably generated by artificial intelligence, in which a popular television presenter and a political leader promoted, in an interview, an investment programme supposedly introduced in Bulgaria. The release's headline says the report used the voices and faces of the two people. She followed the links in the report, was immediately called on Viber by a person who presented as the company's manager, and, on that person's instructions, transferred a total of 33,000 euros in several transactions of up to 10,000 euros each, after which contact stopped. The prosecutors do not say how they concluded that the report was AI-generated, do not name the people shown and report no suspect.
Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 27/10/2026
May 2023United StatesChatGPT
A Colorado lawyer who had recently moved into civil litigation used ChatGPT in April and May 2023 to find case law for a client's motion to set aside a judgment and cited three Colorado Court of Appeals decisions that did not exist, without reading or checking them. On the morning of the 5 May hearing he realised the cases were fabricated but did not tell the court or withdraw the motion, and when the judge raised concerns he falsely blamed a legal intern; six days later he filed an affidavit saying he had used ChatGPT. The judge denied the motion, said the denial did not rest on the invented cases, and ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned and reported to attorney regulators. On 22 November 2023 Colorado's Presiding Disciplinary Judge approved a stipulation suspending him for one year and one day, with 90 days served and the rest stayed on two years' probation, for violating rules on competence, diligence, candour to the tribunal and honesty.
Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 26/10/2026
1 Dec 2025CzechiaUnidentified legal research tool
On 1 December 2025 the presiding judge of a chamber of the Czech Constitutional Court fined a Prague lawyer 25,000 crowns (a quarter of the statutory maximum) for grossly obstructing proceedings. The lawyer had filed a constitutional complaint, for a client refused a temporary residence permit, that argued from 12 decisions of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights; the court found that a substantial part of them did not exist and part were grossly misinterpreted. The order says the complaint showed signs of generative AI and that the court presumed the lawyer had generated it with an AI model and then failed to verify the citations. The lawyer confirmed to INFO.CZ that an AI tool was used, described it as a paid professional model from a legal information system provider, said the output was not checked enough, and expressed regret. The court invited the client to correct the complaint so that the client would suffer no procedural harm; the complaint was later rejected as manifestly unfounded on 30 January 2026. INFO.CZ reported on 10 December 2025 that the lawyer had apologised and paid the fine and that the Czech Bar Association's supervisory board was examining the case.
Core + contextual relations Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 5 sources · Added 26/10/2026
23 Oct 2026SpainPangram AI-text detector
El País checked the winning novel of the first Almadía Ventosa-Arrufat short-novel prize (20,000 euros; the rules banned generative AI) with the Pangram AI-text detector, which scored 99% of the roughly 26,000-word text as AI-generated, according to outlets relaying the investigation. El País passed its suspicions to the Mexican publisher Almadía, which on Friday 23 October 2026 announced a detailed review, saying it would not anticipate conclusions, and suspended all activities presenting the book, including a planned tour in Madrid, Barcelona, Seville and Cádiz. The publisher said the Peruvian author had declared in his contract and personally that he did not use AI, and that neither the jury nor its editors had seen signs of AI use. In a statement on Instagram reported by La Nación on 29 October 2026, the author said he conceived, wrote and revised the novel without generative AI tools and was gathering earlier manuscript versions, his notebook and research materials to give to the publisher for its review. Writers objected that a detector score is not conclusive proof of authorship. Whether AI was used is unestablished.
Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 5 sources, 4 underlying accounts · Added 25/10/2026
Event date unknownTürkiyeUnidentified AI research tool
Kısa Dalga reported on 17 June 2026 that a lawyer in Ankara faced investigations by the prosecutor's office and the Ankara Bar after a petition the lawyer signed in a civil case at a court in the Kızılcahamam district cited Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) decisions with wrong case and decision numbers. According to the lawyer, three lawyers prepared the petition and used AI only to support it with case law; the AI tool inserted existing Court of Cassation decisions but wrote their reference numbers wrongly. Opposing counsel raised the citations at the hearing, and the same day the court wrote to the bar and the prosecutor; the lawyer says the court stated the decisions could not be found as cited in the national judicial system (UYAP) and that the numbers gave the impression of having been written at random. The lawyer says the prosecutor did not specify the alleged offence, that the error was unintentional, and that the lawyer became a joke among colleagues. A lawyers' rights group called the investigations pressure on the defence. The AI tool is not named, the hearing date is not given and no outcome of either investigation has been reported.
Core concern Low reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 24/10/2026
Event date unknownEvent location unknownUnidentified AI tool
The Belgian Pensions Ombudsman (Ombudsdienst Pensioenen) published an anonymised example from its casework. According to the Ombudsman, a future retiree with limited digital skills wanted to apply online for an early retirement pension but did not press the send button, so no application was filed and his pension was not paid in his first month of retirement. The Federal Pension Service told him that an early pension can start at the earliest in the month after the application, so that month could not be paid. He checked this using AI and received the answer that a pension can be paid retroactively for up to one year. He complained to the Federal Pension Service and then to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman confirmed that the service's answer was correct, told him that the information he had found concerned Dutch legislation, referred him to the pension services' websites and says it tried in this way to restore his trust in the pension service. It could not recover the missed month because Belgian pension law has no right to correct good-faith errors. The lost month resulted from the unsubmitted application; the AI answer misinformed him about whether it could be recovered. The tool is not named and the dates of the exchange and complaint are not stated; European Pensions reported the case on 9 July 2026.
Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 24/10/2026
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-text detector
A case summary published in July 2025 by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA), the independent student complaints scheme for England and Wales, describes a student with autism who was accused of including large sections of AI-generated content in an essay. The student denied using AI and submitted planning and notes. A disciplinary panel, which had the provider's AI detection software report and compared the essay with other work by the student, found academic misconduct and gave a mark of zero with any reassessment capped at a pass; the provider rejected the appeal, in which the student said the same software had earlier flagged another of their essays in a case where it had been agreed they had not used AI. The OIA found the complaint Justified: the panel had not properly considered the student's evidence, had not shared some evidence it relied on, and had not given sufficient reasons. It recommended reconsideration and changes to the provider's rules, and the student told the OIA that on reconsideration the provider decided there had been no misconduct. The provider and the software are not named.
Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources · Added 23/10/2026
Event date unknownJapanUnidentified image tool
On 12 August 2026 the Kanagawa Prefectural Board of Education in Japan announced disciplinary action against four staff of prefectural schools. According to Fuji TV (FNN) and the Kanagawa Shimbun, one male high-school teacher was suspended for six months for making swimsuit images of a female colleague with generative AI and leaving them where students could view them. FNN reports that he made the images on a smartphone using an account issued by the school, did not know how to delete them, and that students are believed to have seen them in the account history on a shared computer. The teacher said he had a technical interest in sexual content. FNN reports that it was the first disciplinary case in the prefecture involving generative AI; the principal was reprimanded for supervisory responsibility. The colleague's own response is not reported, and the AI tool is not named.
Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 23/10/2026
20 Apr 2023ChinaUnidentified video tool
Police in Baotou, Inner Mongolia, said in a statement published in May 2023 that on 20 April 2023 the legal representative of a technology company in Fuzhou, Fujian, received a WeChat video call from someone who appeared to be a friend and asked to route a 4.3 million yuan tender deposit through the company's account; trusting the video call, he transferred 4.3 million yuan in two payments. The police said the fraudster had used AI face-swapping to pose as the friend. At Fuzhou police's request, Baotou police and a local bank stopped 3.3684 million yuan within about ten minutes; 931,600 yuan had been moved on and was being pursued.
Core concern High reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources · Added 22/10/2026
2020Hong Kong SAR ChinaUnidentified voice-cloning tool
According to a court document reported by Forbes, in which the United Arab Emirates sought US investigators' help, fraudsters used 'deep voice' technology to clone the voice of a company director. In early 2020 a branch manager of a Japanese company in Hong Kong received a call from a man whose voice he recognised as the director of the parent business, who said an acquisition needed transfers of about $35 million; emails from the supposed director and a lawyer confirmed the details, and the manager began making the transfers. Forbes reports that as much as $35 million was stolen. The UAE, whose Dubai Public Prosecution Office led the investigation, believes at least 17 people were involved and asked for help tracing $400,000 sent to US accounts. No arrests or recovery are reported.
Core concern High reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 22/10/2026
Event date unknownHong Kong SAR ChinaUnidentified video tool
Hong Kong police said at a press briefing reported by CNN on 4 February 2024 that a finance worker at a multinational firm had been duped into attending a video call with what appeared to be the company's UK-based chief financial officer and other staff, all of whom were deepfake recreations, and had then remitted a total of HK$200 million (about US$25.6 million). In May 2024 the British engineering firm Arup confirmed to CNN and the Guardian that it was the company involved, that it had notified Hong Kong police in January 2024, and that fake voices and images were used. The worker was not named.
Core concern High reported severity Investigation Opened
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 22/10/2026
20 Oct 2026BrazilUnidentified document-analysis tool
On 20 October 2026 the First Panel of Brazil's Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ordered the lawyers acting in a special appeal (AREsp 3.095.458) to pay a fine of 20,000 reais for an act against the dignity of justice, after the court's case-processing office certified that the petition carried hidden text layers with commands addressed to automated AI processing, such as an instruction to draft a firm conclusion that the appeal should be admitted and granted. The panel also ordered a technical report on the concealment techniques and the communication of the case to the Brazilian bar (OAB) and the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office. One of the lawyers said the text was probably residue of content produced by an AI tool used to draft the petition and denied any intent to interfere. The court said the commands did not influence the outcome; the appeal was not admitted.
AI relation unknown Low reported severity Regulatory Action
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources · Added 22/10/2026