Research On Ai-Assisted Financial Fraud, Embezzlement, And Regulatory Enforcement Cases
Case 1: SEC v. Delphia and Global Predictions (2024) – “AI Washing” in Investment Advising
Facts:
Two investment advisory firms, Delphia and Global Predictions, marketed themselves as using sophisticated AI and machine learning to generate investment strategies.
They claimed their AI models could analyze client data and predict market trends, giving investors superior returns.
In reality, these AI capabilities did not exist; the firms were exaggerating or fabricating their AI use.
Role of AI:
The fraud was centered on the false claim of AI capability. No real AI model was analyzing data; investors were misled by the promise of advanced technology.
Legal/Regulatory Basis:
Violations of the Investment Advisers Act (Section 206) for fraud and misrepresentation.
Misleading marketing violated SEC rules requiring accurate disclosure about capabilities.
Outcome:
Both firms agreed to pay civil penalties totaling $400,000 and entered into consent orders.
This established the precedent that “AI washing”—falsely claiming AI use—can be treated as fraud.
Lesson:
Misrepresenting AI capabilities to attract investors is actionable under securities law, even if no actual theft occurs.
Case 2: Morgan Stanley – Embezzlement by Financial Advisors (2024)
Facts:
Four financial advisors misappropriated client funds through unauthorized transactions.
Morgan Stanley’s internal controls and supervision failed to detect the embezzlement promptly.
Role of AI:
While this case was not AI-driven, it is relevant because it highlights how internal technological controls and supervision can fail.
In a modern AI-enhanced scenario, similar embezzlement could involve AI systems being manipulated to hide unauthorized trades or transfers.
Legal/Regulatory Basis:
Violations of fiduciary duty and the Investment Advisers Act.
Failure to supervise advisors properly, which is actionable even without direct fraud by the institution itself.
Outcome:
Morgan Stanley paid $15 million in fines and settlements for inadequate oversight.
Lesson:
Financial institutions must adapt internal controls to new AI-driven risks to prevent embezzlement and comply with regulatory obligations.
Case 3: Joonko Inc. – AI Startup Securities Fraud (2023)
Facts:
Joonko, a startup claiming to use AI to improve hiring processes, raised $21 million from investors.
The SEC found that the AI technology did not function as advertised, and the company had falsified revenue and customer metrics.
Role of AI:
AI was the core element of the misrepresentation. Investors were induced to fund the company under the belief that its proprietary AI provided a competitive advantage.
Legal/Regulatory Basis:
Federal securities laws prohibiting fraud and misrepresentation.
Misleading statements about technology were treated as equivalent to financial fraud.
Outcome:
The company filed for bankruptcy, and the founder faced civil penalties and potential criminal charges.
Lesson:
Misrepresenting AI technology to attract investment can constitute securities fraud. Regulators are now scrutinizing “AI claims” in financial and startup contexts.
Case 4: Hypothetical AI-Assisted Deepfake Embezzlement (Emerging Threat)
Facts:
An employee uses AI-powered voice cloning and deepfake video to impersonate a CEO, authorizing fraudulent wire transfers.
Funds are diverted to shell accounts without triggering standard internal alerts.
Role of AI:
AI generates convincing audio and video impersonations.
It bypasses human verification processes, making the embezzlement possible.
Legal/Regulatory Basis:
Violations of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §1343) and bank fraud (18 U.S.C. §1344).
Failure of internal controls could result in additional regulatory penalties for the institution under the Bank Secrecy Act and Sarbanes-Oxley.
Outcome:
While not yet fully litigated publicly, such scenarios are increasingly anticipated by regulators and internal auditors.
Lesson:
AI-powered impersonation is a growing method for financial fraud. Institutions must update security protocols to detect and prevent AI-based manipulation.
Summary of Lessons Across Cases
| Case | Type of Fraud | AI Role | Key Takeaways |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delphia & Global Predictions | Misleading marketing | False AI claims | “AI washing” is actionable fraud |
| Morgan Stanley | Embezzlement | Weak controls (non-AI) | Supervision failures can be costly; AI could amplify risk |
| Joonko | Securities fraud | Misrepresented AI technology | AI misrepresentation to investors = fraud |
| Deepfake Embezzlement | Internal theft | AI impersonation | Deepfake/voice cloning poses real financial risk; internal controls must adapt |
These four cases illustrate three categories of AI-related financial fraud:
Misrepresentation of AI capabilities (Delphia, Joonko)
Failure to supervise AI-enhanced or automated processes (Morgan Stanley analog)
Direct AI-assisted embezzlement (hypothetical deepfake case)
They show that regulators treat AI not as a special exemption but as a potential amplifier of existing fraud.
RELATED Blog
0 comments