Research On Prosecuting Ai-Enabled Blackmail Using Deepfake Technology
Case 1: Delhi, India – AI-generated sexual images for extortion
Facts:
A 21-year-old man created AI-manipulated sexualized images of a female college student using publicly available photos. He threatened to circulate these images on social media and to her family unless she paid him money.
Legal Issue:
Whether creating and threatening to share AI-generated sexual images constitutes blackmail/extortion under Indian law.
Outcome:
The accused was arrested under the Indian Penal Code sections for extortion and the Information Technology Act for digital cheating and harassment.
The court treated the AI-generated images as sufficient to constitute a threat, even though no real sexual act occurred.
Forensic evidence from his devices and chat logs established intent and coercion.
Significance:
Shows that deepfakes are treated as real threats legally, even if no actual image of the victim was involved.
Mens rea (intent to coerce/defraud) is critical in prosecution.
Case 2: Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh, India – Systematic deepfake blackmail
Facts:
A man named Rabbani Abbas created AI-generated nude images of 36 girls using Instagram photos. He blackmailed the victims, demanding money under threat of exposure. He also arranged in-person meetings under threat of revealing the images.
Legal Issue:
Large-scale blackmail using AI-generated images; the challenge was linking AI-manipulated images to threats and payments.
Outcome:
Arrested by the Special Task Force; devices were seized showing AI-generated images and chat conversations with victims.
Confessed to using AI and VPNs to avoid detection.
Multiple victims came forward, enabling prosecution under extortion, cheating, and digital harassment statutes.
Significance:
Illustrates high-scale AI blackmail operations.
Courts recognize AI-generated sexual content as actionable under extortion laws.
Case 3: Thane, Maharashtra, India – AI voice deepfake for financial extortion
Facts:
A woman used AI-generated male voices to impersonate a man and threaten her neighbor, coercing her into transferring roughly ₹6.6 lakh.
Legal Issue:
Whether AI-generated voice impersonation for extortion constitutes a prosecutable offense.
Outcome:
Police registered a case under IPC sections for cheating and IT Act provisions for digital fraud.
Voice analysis confirmed AI manipulation; victim testimony proved coercion.
The accused was convicted for extortion and fraud.
Significance:
Shows that AI-enabled blackmail is not limited to images; voice and other modalities are included.
Prosecution relies on demonstrating the victim’s belief in the authenticity of the threat and the intent of the perpetrator.
Case 4: Malaysia – Deepfake blackmail targeting public figures
Facts:
Several cases emerged where deepfake images/videos of lawmakers and public figures were fabricated and used to threaten exposure for political or financial leverage.
Legal Issue:
Existing statutes did not explicitly cover AI/deepfake blackmail, making prosecution challenging.
Outcome:
Law enforcement investigated under obscenity, communication misuse, and extortion laws.
New legislation (Online Safety Act) was proposed to specifically criminalize deepfake manipulation for coercion or blackmail.
Some perpetrators were arrested and fined under existing laws.
Significance:
Highlights regulatory gaps in addressing AI-enabled blackmail.
Shows that even political/public figure targets are vulnerable.
Prosecutors must link AI manipulation to demonstrable threats to victims.
Case 5: U.S. – Central Coast, California – AI-generated image sextortion
Facts:
A man used AI to create sexually explicit images of women and threatened to release them unless they paid him.
Legal Issue:
Whether AI-generated “non-existent” sexual images qualify as extortion material.
Outcome:
Prosecuted under federal and state laws on sextortion, extortion, and computer fraud.
Courts recognized that the threat of exposure, not the reality of the images, constitutes blackmail.
The perpetrator was sentenced to jail and ordered to pay restitution.
Significance:
Reinforces that AI deepfakes are treated equivalently to real compromising content in legal terms.
Prosecutors focus on intent, threat, and victim response, not whether the content is real.
Key Takeaways Across Cases
AI/deepfake content = actionable threat: Legal systems treat fake sexual or compromising content as sufficient for extortion.
Proof of intent is critical: Linking creation, threat, and demand for money establishes criminal liability.
Modality is expanding: Images, videos, and voice deepfakes all qualify.
Scale matters: Large-scale operations, multiple victims, or targeting public figures intensifies prosecution.
Regulatory adaptation: Some countries are updating laws to explicitly criminalize AI/deepfake blackmail.
RELATED Blog
comments