What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Legal Norm | State relied on s.23(a) of a purported 'Criminal Procedure (Enforcement Powers, Search and Seizure in Computer) Law, 1996' to define 'institutional computer'; the court found no such law exists (AI-generated) and the state admitted the mistake at the hearing.

Details

AI UseIn opposing the return of a seized mobile phone, the prosecution cited a non-existent statutory provision allegedly defining what qualifies as an “institutional computer.” The judge identified the law as fictional and attributed its creation to generative AI, noting that it does not appear in any legal database or government source. The court referred to this as a product “created by artificial intelligence.”Hallucination DetailsThe prosecution cited a statute regarding institutional computer definitions which, upon investigation, did not exist in Israeli law. The judge conducted internet and database searches to confirm its nonexistence. The judge criticized the error, remarking: “If I thought I had seen everything in 30 years on the bench, I was mistaken”Ruling/SanctionThe judge declined to sanction the prosecution but strongly rebuked the conduct, calling it embarrassing and improper.Key Judicial ReasoningThe judge stressed that citing phantom laws undermines public confidence and judicial efficiency. Even absent malice, reliance on fictitious AI-generated legal references is unacceptable. The judgment did not penalize the prosecution but underscored the need for due diligence and warned of reputational damage.

Sanction teardown · Israel, Israel · 2025-05-07

Israel v. Ibrahim Mahajneh

What happened

In Israel, Israel, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

Fabricated (Legal Norm)

State relied on s.23(a) of a purported 'Criminal Procedure (Enforcement Powers, Search and Seizure in Computer) Law, 1996' to define 'institutional computer'; the court found no such law exists (AI-generated) and the state admitted the mistake at the hearing.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

No sanction imposed; judge criticized the error as a “disgrace”; granted partial relief to applicant

Additional detail

AI UseIn opposing the return of a seized mobile phone, the prosecution cited a non-existent statutory provision allegedly defining what qualifies as an “institutional computer.” The judge identified the law as fictional and attributed its creation to generative AI, noting that it does not appear in any legal database or government source. The court referred to this as a product “created by artificial intelligence.”Hallucination DetailsThe prosecution cited a statute regarding institutional computer definitions which, upon investigation, did not exist in Israeli law. The judge conducted internet and database searches to confirm its nonexistence. The judge criticized the error, remarking: “If I thought I had seen everything in 30 years on the bench, I was mistaken”Ruling/SanctionThe judge declined to sanction the prosecution but strongly rebuked the conduct, calling it embarrassing and improper.Key Judicial ReasoningThe judge stressed that citing phantom laws undermines public confidence and judicial efficiency. Even absent malice, reliance on fictitious AI-generated legal references is unacceptable. The judgment did not penalize the prosecution but underscored the need for due diligence and warned of reputational damage.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/316/State_of_Israel_v._Ibrahim_Mahajneh_Israel_May_7_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).