# AI 伪造或增强的证据在新加坡法庭被提交的情况

- 日期: 2026-08-04
- 收录: 2026-09-04
- 相关方: Ms Hany Soh · Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai
- 来源: https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=written-answer-na-24016
- sgai: https://sgai.md/zh/debates/written-answer-na-24016/
- 许可：sgai 自产内容（摘要、译文、分析）CC BY 4.0，署名并链接 sgai.md 即可；逐字原文（国会记录、演讲、字幕、政策原文）© 原权利人，仅供引用。条款：https://github.com/meltflake/sgai/blob/main/DATA-LICENSE.md

## 为什么重要

法院 2024 年生成式 AI 指南与律政部 2026 年 3 月指南并行，至少 2 起律师被制裁，深伪证据尚无判例

## 摘要

苏涵妮（Ms Hany Soh）书面询问律政部长：是否知悉有 AI 伪造或增强的证据被提交到法庭，司法人员是否有足够训练和工具防范。律政部长唐振辉（Mr Edwin Tong）答复，此类证据分两种情形。一是用 AI 蓄意伪造或篡改证据，如深伪图片或视频：新加坡法院确认迄今没有已公布判决作出此类认定，但曾在当事人无法解释文件制备中对 AI 依赖程度时不予采纳证据；明知提交虚假证据者将面临刑事责任。二是用 AI 工具准备宣誓书、报告等法庭文件：问题不在于用 AI 本身，而在于疏忽使用把不准确内容、捏造事实或虚构引注带进法庭文件。法院 2024 年发布《法庭使用者使用生成式人工智能工具指南》，要求呈堂材料准确、相关且经独立核实；律政部 2026 年 3 月的《法律界使用生成式 AI 指南》再次强调。已有至少两起公布案件因律师未尽此责被制裁。司法学院培训法官处理数字证据的可采性、真实性与可靠性，有争议时可借助专家证据和数字取证。

## 要点

- AI 证据分两种情形：蓄意伪造（如深伪图片视频）与疏忽使用 AI 制备法庭文件引入错误、捏造或虚构引注
- 新加坡法院确认迄今没有已公布判决认定深伪证据，但曾在当事人无法解释 AI 依赖程度时不予采纳证据
- 法院 2024 年发布《法庭使用者使用生成式 AI 工具指南》，律政部 2026 年 3 月发布《法律界使用生成式 AI 指南》，均要求材料准确、相关、经独立核实
- 已有至少两起公布案件，法院因律师未尽核实责任而施加制裁
- 司法学院培训法官处理数字证据的可采性、真实性与可靠性，争议时可依赖专家证据与数字取证

## 全文

73号议员Hany Soh询问法律部长：(i) 部门是否知晓有人工智能伪造或增强的证据被提交至法院作为证据的案例；(ii) 司法人员和官员是否接受了足够的培训和配备，以防范此类情况。

Edwin Tong Chun Fai先生：在法庭程序中提交的人工智能（AI）伪造或增强的证据，可能出现两种大致情形。

第一种是利用AI故意伪造或操纵证据，例如深度伪造的图像或视频。新加坡法院已确认，目前尚无此类情况在已公布判决中被认定。然而，法院在某些情况下已忽视了当事方无法令人满意地解释其在准备文件时依赖AI程度的证据。尽管如此，任何明知提交虚假证据的一方，均将面临法律上的严重后果，包括刑事责任。

第二种情形是使用AI工具准备提交法院的文件，如宣誓书和报告。这里的关注点不在于AI的使用本身，而在于因疏忽或粗心使用AI而导致法院文件中出现不准确、伪造或虚构引用。

2024年，新加坡法院发布了《法院用户使用生成式人工智能工具指南》，明确指出法院用户有责任确保提交法院的所有材料准确、相关且经过独立核实。该责任在司法部于2026年3月发布的《法律行业生成式AI使用指南》中得到了强调。至少有两起已公布的案例中，新加坡法院对未履行此责任的律师实施了制裁。

为检测此类情况，新加坡司法学院为法官提供培训，处理证据的可采性、真实性和可靠性问题，包括数字证据。当真实性或可靠性受到质疑时，法院还可依赖专家证据和数字取证分析进行核实。

新加坡法院通过多种学习平台，结合技术和专家支持，紧跟技术发展步伐。特别是法官，作为多管齐下的综合持续培训框架的一部分，接受处理诉讼中证据问题的培训。

## Hansard (original, English)

© Parliament of Singapore — reproduced for reference only.

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.