Analysis Of Prosecution Strategies For Ai-Generated Synthetic Media In Cybercrime
Key Prosecution Strategies
Before the cases, it’s useful to outline common strategies prosecutors employ when dealing with synthetic media (deepfakes, voice cloning, AI‑image generation) used in cybercrime:
Framing the conduct within existing offences: Since many jurisdictions lack specific “deepfake” statutes, prosecutors often use existing laws—such as impersonation, fraud, identity theft, child sexual exploitation, defamation, or offences under computer misuse/cybercrime statutes.
Establishing causation and harm: Because synthetic media often involve non‑consensual imagery, false endorsements, or manipulative content, prosecution must show how the content caused harm (financial loss, reputational damage, sexual exploitation, etc).
Tracing digital provenance: Identifying the AI tool, generation method, distribution channels, and linking them to the defendant is key. Forensic digital evidence (metadata, prompts, logs) is crucial.
Proving intent: Particularly for fraud or impersonation, showing the perpetrator knowingly used synthetic media to deceive or exploit is critical. AI complicates this because generation might be automated or semi‑automated.
Using injunctions or interim relief: Even before full prosecution, courts may grant interim injunctions to prevent further dissemination, preserve evidence, or freeze accounts.
Leveraging regulatory and civil mechanisms: Sometimes, criminal prosecution is supplemented by civil claims (misuse of likeness, defamation, privacy breaches) or intermediary obligations (platform takedowns) to enhance accountability.
Evidentiary challenges: Synthetic media raise unique issues—authentication of the media, distinguishing real from fake, establishing chain of custody, and adapting expert testimony to explain AI generation to a court.
With these strategies in mind, we now look at four cases illustrating how this plays out.
Case 1: Arijit Singh (India – commercial voice‑clone/AI impersonation case)
Facts: A well‑known Indian singer (Arijit Singh) sued 38 defendants, including AI developers, VR event organisers, e‑commerce websites and domain registrars, alleging that his voice had been cloned via AI tools and used for commercial gain without his consent. Khurana And Khurana
Prosecution/Legal Strategy:
The court treated the misuse of the voice and likeness as a violation of personality/publicity rights: the singer’s voice and identity were commercially exploited.
An interim injunction was granted ex parte, prohibiting defendants from using the singer’s voice or likeness via AI and deepfake technologies.
The court rejected defences like parody or public‑domain use, emphasising that impersonation via AI for commercial gain without consent was actionable.
The strategy combined torts (misuse of likeness), intellectual property rights (voice/identity), and injunctive relief rather than relying on a specific “synthetic media” statute.
Outcome and Significance:
This case highlights how existing legal frameworks (personality rights, torts) can be used to prosecute synthetic‑media misuse in jurisdictions lacking deepfake‑specific legislation.
It emphasises the importance of early injunctive relief and cross‑sector defendants (platforms, developers, intermediaries).
Evidentiary challenge: the plaintiff had to link the AI generation to commercial exploitation; the court accepted that voice‑clone counts as misuse even without a dedicated statute.
Case 2: Manish Warikoo (India – deepfake for financial fraud)
Facts: A deepfake video used a well‑known financial influencer’s (Warikoo’s) face, voice and brand to promote investment scams. Unknown perpetrators created synthetic audio‑visual content that appeared to be the influencer endorsing a stock‑market app; victims were directed to invest via obscure apps/accounts which then froze funds. Law.asia
Prosecution/Legal Strategy:
The court treated the case as misuse of likeness, fraud, and impersonation. The unknown “John Doe” defendants were restrained via an order.
The platform (Meta) was held accountable for delayed removal of infringing content. The court directed takedowns within 36 hours and disclosure of user data.
The strategy: combine injunctive relief (stop further dissemination), platform intermediary liability (failure to act) plus criminal/fraud investigation of unknown defendants.
For criminal prosecution: showing that the synthetic media caused financial loss (victims invested) -> fraud/imposter offences.
Outcome and Significance:
Note: this example is primarily a civil or injunctive remedy case rather than a full criminal judgment, but it shows how synthetic media is being treated as a tool for financial fraud.
Important for prosecution: showing the link between the synthetic content (deepfake) and the victim’s decision to act (invest) — causation of financial harm.
Platform liability is part of the chain; prosecutors can use this to compel evidence/disclosure from intermediaries.
Case 3: UK Case – Hugh Nelson (AI‑generated child sexual abuse imagery)
Facts: A British man used AI software (by Daz 3D) to create images of child sexual abuse, including custom commissions. He generated and distributed pseudo‑photographs of children using AI. AP News
Prosecution Strategy:
The defendant was charged under child‑sexual‑abuse imagery laws, including creation and distribution of indecent pseudo‑photographs of children.
The strategy is to treat AI‑generated imagery as functionally equivalent to other illicit imagery; the law focuses on the image and harm rather than the origin (AI vs camera).
Evidence: digital files, AI usage logs, commissions from buyers, distribution channels.
The prosecution did not wait for deepfake‑specific statute; they used existing child‑abuse laws, which allowed long prison sentence (18 years).
This case demonstrates that AI‑generated media does not avoid criminal liability if it falls within existing prohibited content statutes.
Outcome and Significance:
Landmark in that it shows creation of “synthetic” abuse imagery is prosecutable under existing laws, even though origin is AI.
The case sets precedent for treating AI‑generated harmful content seriously; encourages prosecutors to adapt without always waiting for new legislation.
It also emphasises the need for forensic capability to trace generation and distribution of synthetic content.
Case 4: US Case – Steven Anderegg (AI‑generated child sexual abuse material)
Facts: In the US, a man used the AI tool Stable Diffusion to generate more than 13,000 explicit images of children (pre‑pubescent) and distributed them over Instagram to a minor. The Guardian
Prosecution Strategy:
The charges: creation, possession and distribution of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Even though images were AI‑generated (not from real children), prosecutors treat them under CSAM laws.
The legal strategy is similar to the UK case: use existing criminal statutes focusing on exploitative imagery, distribution to minors, etc.
Digital forensic strategy: seizures of laptop, logs showing use of AI prompts, connection to distribution via Instagram.
The prosecution does not rely on “deepfake” statute; rather, the existing CSAM regime covers any indecent images of children, whether AI‑generated or real.
Intent and harm: The defendant knowingly generated and distributed illicit images; harm to children and distribution to minors strengthens case.
Outcome and Significance:
This case reinforces that AI‑generated exploitative content is actionable under existing criminal law regimes.
It signals to prosecutors that they don’t need to wait for deepfake‑specific law to act: the content may already be prohibited.
However, it also shows challenges: scale of AI generation (13,000 images), tracing distribution, distinguishing AI vs real images, expert evidence required.
Case 5: (Emerging) Synthetic Media for Impersonation & Investment Scams
Facts: While no fully public major criminal judgment yet captures this, multiple jurisdictions (including India) report cases where deepfake videos or voice clones impersonate public figures or executives to induce investments or malware downloads. For example, fake videos of celebrities endorsing investment apps; or voice‑cloned CEO instructing finance department to send money.
Prosecution Strategy:
Use existing fraud/cheating statutes: proving that synthetic media led victims to rely on false representation and suffer financial loss.
Evidence strategy: linking the synthetic media output (video/voice), distribution channel, victim reliance, and financial loss.
Charging under impersonation or identity theft statutes, as well as computer misuse if linked to hacking of accounts or access.
Injunctive/civil relief: immediate takedown of content, preservation of intermediary data (platform logs), disclosure orders.
Cross‑border/co‑operation strategies: because synthetic media may be generated in one country, distributed via platforms hosted elsewhere; hence use of mutual legal assistance and asset tracing is important.
Challenges & Considerations:
Proving the media is synthetic and linking the creation to the defendant: requires technical forensic expertise.
Establishing victim reliance: i.e., showing victim believed the content and acted accordingly.
Dealing with anonymity of perpetrators: many deepfakes distributed via online platforms, broad networks, requiring subpoenas and platform cooperation.
Jurisdictional issues: the creation may be in one state/country, distribution internationally – requiring cross‑border investigative strategy.
Synthesis & Observations
Existing laws suffice (for now): Many prosecutions are using existing statutes (fraud, impersonation, CSAM, personality rights, etc) rather than waiting for “deepfake law”. This is good tactical strategy.
Prosecutorial emphasis on harm and intent: Synthetic media may confuse traditional evidentiary paradigms, so prosecutors emphasise intentionality (knowing use of AI), distribution, and actual harm (financial, reputational, sexual exploitation).
Forensic burden is heavy: Technical evidence (metadata, AI‑tool logs, distribution channels) is often pivotal. Prosecution units need capacity to handle synthetic media forensic work.
Platform/intermediary cooperation is key: Takedowns, disclosure orders, preservation of logs from social media, hosting providers, etc.
Jurisdictional/co‑operation challenges: Synthetic media doesn’t respect borders; perpetrators can be in jurisdictions with weak enforcement. Mutual assistance, cross‑border asset tracing, and digital evidence sharing are important.
Preventive/injunctive mechanisms matter: Courts increasingly grant interim relief (injunctions, takedowns) ahead of full prosecution—which is practically important because synthetic media can spread rapidly and cause irreversible harm.
Legislative gaps remain: The cases show work‑arounds rather than bespoke “synthetic media” laws. There are still evidentiary and procedural uncertainties (authentication, chain of custody of AI‑generated material, attribution). As noted in India for example: “the law is silent on how to distinguish or treat AI‑generated features that mimic real ones.”
RELATED Blog
comments