Written Answer · 2026-08-04 · Parliament 15
Instances when AI-augmented Evidence Has Been Tendered as Evidence before Court of Law in Singapore
Hany Soh asked the Minister for Law in a written question whether the Ministry is aware of instances in which AI-fabricated or AI-augmented evidence has been tendered before a court, and whether judicial staff and officers are sufficiently trained and equipped to guard against such cases. Minister Edwin Tong replied that such evidence arises in two scenarios. The first is deliberate fabrication or manipulation using AI, such as deepfake images or videos: the Singapore Courts confirm there have yet to be such findings in a published decision, though the Courts have disregarded evidence where a party could not explain its reliance on AI, and knowingly tendering false evidence carries criminal liability. The second is using AI tools to prepare affidavits and reports, where negligent or careless use introduces inaccuracies, fabrications or fictitious citations. The Courts' 2024 Guide on the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools by Court Users makes court users responsible for accurate, relevant and independently verified materials, a duty underscored by the Ministry's Guide for the Use of Generative AI in the Legal Sector issued in March 2026; at least two published cases have sanctioned lawyers for failing it. The Singapore Judicial College trains judges on admissibility, authenticity and reliability of digital evidence, and the Courts may rely on expert evidence and digital forensic analysis where authenticity is contested.
Why it matters
The Courts' 2024 generative-AI guide and the Ministry of Law's March 2026 legal-sector guide are in force, at least two lawyers have been sanctioned over AI misuse, and no published ruling has yet found deepfake evidence.
Key Points
- • AI evidence arises in two scenarios: deliberate fabrication such as deepfake images or videos, and careless use of AI in preparing court documents that introduces errors, fabrications or fictitious citations
- • The Singapore Courts confirm no published decision has yet found deepfake evidence, though evidence has been disregarded where a party could not explain its reliance on AI
- • The Courts' 2024 Guide on the use of Generative AI Tools by Court Users and the Ministry's March 2026 Guide for the Use of Generative AI in the Legal Sector both require materials to be accurate, relevant and independently verified
- • In at least two published cases the Courts have sanctioned lawyers for failing in that verification responsibility
- • The Singapore Judicial College trains judges on admissibility, authenticity and reliability of digital evidence, with expert evidence and digital forensics available when contested
The Ministry of Law splits the AI-evidence risk into deliberate fabrication and negligent use and answers each separately: the former with existing criminal law and the Courts' power to exclude evidence of unexplained provenance, the latter with the Courts' 2024 guide and the Ministry's March 2026 sector guide, which pin the verification duty on court users and lawyers and have already been enforced through sanctions. The Government judges the Judicial College's continuous training, expert evidence and digital forensics sufficient for judges, and proposes no new legislation.
Questioner Hany Soh focused on two points: whether the courts have already encountered AI-fabricated or augmented evidence, and whether judicial officers can detect it. The reply drew the line at no published deepfake finding versus two sanctions over AI-prepared documents, and answered the second point with training and forensic capacity.
Singapore is governing generative AI in court proceedings through soft law plus existing sanctions: the Courts' 2024 guide and the Ministry of Law's March 2026 legal-sector guide form the normative layer, the two published cases sanctioning lawyers for fictitious citations form the enforcement layer, and deepfake evidence is left to criminal law and judicial discretion over evidence. The reply states the operating principle plainly — the problem is not using AI but failing to verify independently — consistent with Singapore's AI-governance habit of placing accountability on the user. As deepfake tools spread, the Courts' digital-forensic capacity and expert evidence will become the next pressure point.
"The concern here is not the use of AI in itself, but where the negligent or careless use of AI introduces inaccuracies, fabrications or fictitious citations into Court documents."
Participants (2)
Original Text (English)
SPRS Hansard · Fetched: 2026-09-04
73 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Law whether (i) the Ministry is aware of instances in which artificial intelligence-fabricated or augmented evidence has been tendered as evidence before a Court of law and (ii) judicial staff and officers are sufficiently trained and equipped to guard against such cases.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai : Artificial intelligence (AI)-fabricated or augmented evidence tendered in Court proceedings may arise in two broad scenarios.
First is the deliberate fabrication or manipulation of evidence using AI, such as deepfake images or videos. The Singapore Courts have confirmed that there have yet to be such findings in a published decision. However, the Courts have in instances disregarded evidence where a party cannot satisfactorily explain the extent of reliance on AI in preparing the document. Nevertheless, any party who knowingly tenders false evidence faces serious consequences under the law, including criminal liability.
The second scenario is the use of AI tools in the preparation of documents filed in Court, such as affidavits and reports. The concern here is not the use of AI in itself, but where the negligent or careless use of AI introduces inaccuracies, fabrications or fictitious citations into Court documents.
In 2024, the Singapore Courts issued the Guide on the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools by Court Users which makes clear that Court users are responsible for ensuring that all materials placed before the Court are accurate, relevant and independently verified. This responsibility is underscored in the Ministry's Guide for the Use of Generative AI in the Legal Sector issued in March 2026. There have been at least two published cases where the Singapore Courts have imposed sanctions on lawyers for failing in such responsibility.
To detect such occurrences, the Singapore Judicial College provides training to judges to deal with issues of admissibility, authenticity and reliability of evidence, including digital evidence. Where authenticity or reliability is contested, the Courts may also rely on expert evidence and digital forensic analysis for verification.
The Singapore Courts keep pace with technological developments through a range of learning platforms supported by technical and expert assistance. Judges, in particular, are trained to deal with evidentiary issues in litigation as part of a multi-pronged comprehensive continuous training framework.