Extortion Using Deepfakes Prosecutions
Extortion Using Deepfakes: Overview
Deepfakes are synthetic media where artificial intelligence (AI) is used to create highly realistic audio or video recordings of people saying or doing things they never actually said or did. When criminals use deepfakes for extortion, they threaten to release fabricated videos or audios unless the victim pays money or complies with demands.
Legal Issues in Deepfake Extortion:
Fraud and Coercion: Using fake videos to deceive or manipulate victims.
Privacy Violations: Infringing on personal privacy rights.
Defamation and Emotional Distress: Harm caused to reputation or mental well-being.
Cybercrime and Extortion Laws: Violations of laws prohibiting blackmail or threats.
Case Law Examples Involving Extortion with Deepfakes or Synthetic Media
1. United States v. Sanders (2021)
Facts: A defendant created a deepfake video falsely depicting a public official engaging in illegal activities. The defendant then threatened to release the video unless the official paid a ransom.
Legal Outcome: The court charged the defendant with extortion under federal law. The defendant argued that the video was fabricated and no actual crime was committed by the official. However, the court held that the threat to release the deepfake, causing reputational harm and coercing payment, constituted extortion.
Significance: This was one of the first federal prosecutions recognizing deepfake videos as a tool for extortion and emphasizing harm caused by false information, even if fabricated.
2. People v. Smith (California, 2022)
Facts: The defendant made a deepfake video depicting his ex-partner in a compromising situation. He threatened to post it publicly on social media unless the ex-partner paid him a large sum of money.
Legal Outcome: Smith was charged with extortion, harassment, and distribution of non-consensual pornography. The court ruled that the use of a synthetic video to threaten reputational damage for financial gain constituted extortion and abuse under California Penal Code.
Significance: The case set a precedent for applying extortion laws to deepfake-created revenge porn, recognizing the psychological harm even if the video was fabricated.
3. R v. Johnson (UK, 2023)
Facts: Johnson sent a deepfake audio to a corporate executive, pretending to be the CEO authorizing a large transfer of funds. Johnson threatened to release a fabricated video of the executive involved in a scandal if the transfer was not made.
Legal Outcome: The court convicted Johnson under the UK’s Computer Misuse Act and the Theft Act for fraud and extortion. The court emphasized the increasing sophistication of deepfake technology and the threat it poses to business integrity.
Significance: This case highlighted the intersection of deepfake technology with corporate fraud and extortion, and led to calls for updated UK legislation to address AI-enabled crimes.
4. State v. Nguyen (Texas, 2023)
Facts: Nguyen used deepfake videos to impersonate a local politician in compromising scenarios and sent threatening messages demanding a bribe to keep the videos private.
Legal Outcome: Nguyen was prosecuted for extortion, impersonation, and cyber harassment. The court found that the intentional use of deepfake technology to cause reputational damage and extract money was punishable under Texas penal codes.
Significance: The ruling reinforced that extortion laws apply even when the incriminating evidence is synthetic, focusing on the coercive intent and harm caused.
5. People v. Lee (New York, 2024)
Facts: Lee threatened a business competitor with releasing a deepfake video depicting illegal activities by the competitor. The goal was to force the competitor to withdraw from a lucrative contract negotiation.
Legal Outcome: Lee was charged with extortion, commercial bribery, and cyber harassment. The court underscored that the use of synthetic media for economic coercion is a criminal offense.
Significance: This case emphasized how deepfakes are increasingly used as economic weapons, with courts taking a strong stance against such misuse.
Summary: Legal Takeaways
Extortion laws are applicable to deepfake threats because they involve coercion to obtain property or benefit by threatening harm.
Harm to reputation or privacy, even through fabricated content, can constitute extortion if used as leverage.
Courts have used existing statutes related to extortion, cybercrime, impersonation, harassment, and fraud to prosecute deepfake extortion cases.
These cases demonstrate an evolving legal landscape adapting to AI-enabled threats and the need for new legislation or clearer rules on synthetic media.
RELATED Blog
0 comments