Advocates analyzed when AI becomes the subject of an expert examination

Advocates and forensic experts should work together to develop uniform guidelines for preparing case materials and formulating questions in criminal proceedings involving the use of artificial intelligence to commit a crime.

This was discussed by participants at the All-Ukrainian roundtable titled «Artificial Intelligence as the subject of forensic examination: problematic issues and ways to resolve them». The event was organized by the Research Center for Forensic Expertise in Information Technology and Intellectual Property of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the National Technical University of Ukraine «Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute» on October 2 in Kyiv.

The event was attended by representatives of forensic institutions from various regions of Ukraine, leading universities and research institutions, the judiciary, the legal profession, and the business community. The Ukrainian National Bar Association was represented by the chairman of the Committee on cybersecurity and virtual assets Andriy Galych and his deputy Roman Ostrovsky.

They presented methods for verifying the authenticity of synthetic audio and video recordings and explored the role of forensic analysis in investigating cases involving the use of AI in virtual asset fraud.

In particular, it was noted that today it is possible to fabricate an audio or video recording in just a few minutes, which requires a new approach to evaluating the prosecution’s evidence. Even if the voice on the recording is 100 percent identical to the suspect’s, this does not mean the recording is genuine. Therefore, if there is even the slightest doubt, the possibility that the recording was generated must be investigated.

The preparatory stage of the investigation is crucial for this and should begin with determining the source of the recording and its history. It is important for the advocate to determine who created or received the file, from which device it was seized, to whom it was transferred, and whether the full recording has been preserved. After all, during the technical analysis, experts will inevitably determine where the recording came from, whether it was altered, and how the file was transferred. During the examination, special attention is paid to metadata — the file’s administrative information and its checksum.

However, it is important to remember that an expert’s conclusion regarding the absence of signs of tampering does not necessarily mean that the record is 100 percent authentic. A. Galich noted that this merely indicates that the specific methods used by the expert simply did not find any traces of forgery in the file provided.

Expert analysis and legal practice share a single goal — to ensure an objective examination of the circumstances, rather than simply establishing or refuting the fact of forgery.

Regarding procedural options, the speakers reminded the audience that, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, the defense may independently engage an expert on a contractual basis (Art. 243) or apply to the investigating judge (Art. 244). Article 102 requires a description of the investigations, methods, and substantiated conclusions, while Article 356 allows the court to ask the expert questions regarding methodologies, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the scientific basis for the conclusion. Objections should be tied to a specific shortcoming: the unverified origin of a file, an unsuitable method or a conclusion that goes beyond the scope of the results obtained.