Indonesian Police Arrest Fraudster Using AI Deepfake to Impersonate Officials

This event describes a realized harm where an AI system (deepfake face‐and‐voice cloning) was knowingly misused to commit fraud, deceiving victims and causing financial and reputational harm. The misuse of AI to impersonate officials and swindle people meets the criteria for an AI Incident.

The suspect used AI deepfake technology (an AI system) to generate and spread videos falsely showing government figures offering aid, thereby committing fraud. This is a realized harm enabled by an AI system’s misuse, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The case involves the malicious use of an AI system (deepfake) to impersonate a public official and defraud people, constituting realized harm (financial and reputational). Therefore, it is an AI Incident.

The event describes an actual fraud (harm) that occurred via the malicious use of an AI deepfake system to deceive victims. Since the AI system’s misuse directly led to criminal financial harm, it constitutes an AI Incident.

The event involves the deployment of an AI system (deepfake technology) in a fraudulent scheme that directly caused financial harm to victims, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident.

The event describes a realized misuse of an AI system (deepfake generation) to perpetrate fraud and impersonate state officials, directly causing harm (deception and potential financial or reputational damage). This meets the definition of an AI Incident, as the AI system’s use directly led to wrongdoing and harm.

An AI system (deepfake generation) was actively used in a fraud scheme causing direct harm (victims deceived and potentially defrauded). This constitutes an AI Incident because the AI-generated content directly facilitated the scam and led to real-world harm.

An AI deepfake system was used to misrepresent a state official’s identity for fraudulent purposes, causing harm and prompting law enforcement intervention. This meets the criteria for an AI Incident, as the AI’s use directly led to criminal harm.

The event involves the use of an AI system (deepfake technology) in the commission of fraud, which is a violation of rights and causes harm to people. The AI system's use directly led to the harm (fraud). Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident under the framework.

The event involves an AI system (deepfake technology) used maliciously to impersonate a public official, which constitutes a violation of rights and causes harm to individuals or communities through fraud. The harm has already occurred as the fraud was committed, and the perpetrator was arrested. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the direct involvement of AI in causing harm.

The article explicitly mentions the use of AI (deepfake technology) to impersonate a state official for fraudulent purposes. This use of AI directly caused harm by enabling deception and fraud, which fits the definition of an AI Incident as the AI system's use led to harm (fraud). The arrest confirms the harm has materialized, not just a potential risk, so it is not merely a hazard or complementary information.

This is a clear example of misuse of an AI system (deepfake technology) that directly led to harm (fraud through impersonation). The incident is realized—police uncovered and arrested the suspect—so it constitutes an AI Incident.

The article describes a realized incident where AI-generated deepfake videos were actively used to commit fraud and manipulate public opinion, directly harming victims and the integrity of government figures, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The article describes an actual crime in which the suspect used AI deepfake technology to create fake videos of government officials, directly leading to financial harm for at least 11 victims who transferred money under false pretenses. This constitutes realized harm through the misuse of an AI system.

The article reports an actual scheme where criminals employed AI-based deepfake video generation to impersonate public figures and defraud at least 11 victims of tens of millions of rupiah. This constitutes direct harm (financial loss) resulting from misuse of an AI system, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The incident involves the use of an AI system (deepfake video generation technology) to commit fraud, causing realized financial harm to multiple victims. This constitutes an AI Incident, as the misuse of AI directly led to criminal harm.

The article describes realized harm: the suspect employed AI to produce deepfake videos of the president and vice president, posted them on social media, and defrauded at least 11 victims who lost money. Because the AI system’s use directly led to financial harm, this qualifies as an AI incident.

The event involves actual misuse of an AI system (deepfake generation) to create and distribute fraudulent videos of public officials, causing reputational harm and potential erosion of government authority. This realized harm from AI-generated content qualifies as an AI Incident.

An AI system (deepfake video generation) was used to create manipulated videos of President Prabowo and others, directly causing financial harm to victims via scam transfers. This is a realized harm (monetary loss) resulting from AI misuse.

The case describes the intentional use of AI deepfake technology to create manipulated videos of the president, vice-president, and finance minister. These videos were published on social media to trick people into believing they could sign up for government aid, leading to real monetary harm (fraud). This constitutes an AI Incident because the AI system’s use directly resulted in harm to victims.

Deepfake video creation constitutes an AI system whose use directly led to financial harm (fraud) against citizens and abuse of public trust. The incident is materialized, with suspects arrested and victims harmed, so it qualifies as an AI Incident.

The event explicitly involves the use of a deepfake video, which is an AI-generated synthetic media technology. The deepfake was used to deceive victims into transferring money under false pretenses, resulting in direct financial harm. The involvement of AI in generating the video is central to the incident, and the harm (fraud and financial loss) has already occurred. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to realized harm caused by the malicious use of an AI system.

The event explicitly mentions the use of deepfake AI technology to create a fake video of a public figure, which was then used to deceive and defraud people. This caused direct financial harm to victims, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident as the AI system's use directly led to harm. The harm includes financial loss and deception of the public, which is a significant and clearly articulated harm where the AI system's role is pivotal.

The event explicitly describes the use of AI technology (deepfake video generation) to impersonate public figures and deceive victims, causing direct financial harm (fraud). The AI system's use is central to the incident, as the deepfake videos enabled the scam. The harm is realized and ongoing, with multiple victims and significant monetary losses. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to direct harm caused by the AI system's malicious use.

The event explicitly involves the use of AI-generated deepfake videos, which are created by AI systems that synthesize realistic video and audio content. The deepfake videos were used maliciously to defraud victims, causing direct financial harm. This fits the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to harm (financial loss) to people. The involvement of AI is clear and central to the incident, and the harm is realized, not just potential.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (deepfake video generation) used in a criminal scam causing direct harm to individuals (financial loss). The use of AI-generated deepfake videos to impersonate officials and deceive victims fits the definition of an AI Incident, as the AI system's use directly led to harm (fraud and financial loss).

The event involves the use of AI-generated deepfake videos (an AI system) to commit fraud, leading to direct financial harm to 11 victims. The AI system's use directly caused harm (financial loss) to people, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The involvement of AI in creating the deepfake videos and the resulting realized harm (fraud and financial loss) clearly classify this as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event involves the use of AI to create deepfake videos, which is an AI system by definition. The AI system's use directly led to an AI Incident because it was instrumental in perpetrating fraud and causing financial harm to victims. The harm is realized and ongoing, with multiple victims and active law enforcement response. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event involves the use of an AI system (deepfake video generation) that directly led to harm through the creation of misleading content impersonating a public official. This falls under violations of rights and harm to communities due to misinformation and deception. The arrest indicates the harm has materialized, making this an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The incident involves the malicious use of an AI system (deepfake image and video manipulation) to impersonate President Prabowo Subianto and other officials, directly leading to fraudulent financial transfers by victims. This constitutes an AI Incident because the AI system’s misuse has caused realized harm.

Suspects used AI-manipulated deepfake videos to impersonate President Prabowo Subianto and other officials, tricking at least 11 victims into transferring funds. This is a clear case where the misuse of an AI system directly caused monetary harm to people.

The suspect used deepfake technology (an AI system for generating realistic manipulated video) to impersonate public figures and defraud people, causing realized financial harm of Rp 30 million over four months. This is a direct AI-related incident with clear harm.

The deepfake video tool is an AI system whose use directly led to financial harm to victims. This is a realized incident of AI‐driven fraud.

This is a realized case of AI misuse—deepfake technology was used to deceive the public and commit fraud—meeting the definition of an AI Incident as the AI system’s malicious use led directly to harm (fraud, reputational and community trust damage). Law enforcement action does not change the fact that the harm occurred.

The article details an actual fraud scheme in which deepfake AI technology was used to create a fake video of Prabowo Subianto requesting money, resulting in financial harm to victims and the arrest of the perpetrator. Because the AI system’s misuse directly led to real-world harm, it qualifies as an AI incident.

The event describes the development and use of deepfake AI to perpetrate fraud, directly leading to harm (financial losses) for victims. This is a clear case of malicious use of an AI system causing materialized harm, and thus qualifies as an AI Incident.

Deepfake technology (an AI system for generating manipulated video and audio) was deployed to impersonate officials and deceive people into paying money. Actual harm occurred (financial loss to victims), making this an AI incident.

The misuse of an AI system (deepfake technology) directly enabled a fraud scheme causing realized harm (victims lost money), meeting the criteria for an AI Incident.

The use of deepfake videos—an AI-generated manipulation of real individuals’ likeness—for fraudulent purposes caused direct harm (financial loss) to victims. This meets the criteria for an AI Incident, as an AI system’s malicious use led to realized harm.

The event involves the malicious use of an AI system (deepfake generation) whose outputs directly caused financial harm (fraud) to real people. This falls squarely under AI Incident, as the AI-driven manipulations led to realized harm.

The suspects created and distributed deepfake videos of high-level officials using AI-based video synthesis. These manipulated videos were used to deceive individuals into paying bogus ‘administration fees’ for non-existent government aid. The deepfake technology’s misuse directly caused financial harm, classifying it as an AI Incident.

The police uncovered a syndicate using AI-powered deepfake videos of high-level officials to deceive at least 11 victims and steal about Rp 30 million. The AI system’s intentional misuse directly led to realized monetary harm, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The perpetrator used AI‐generated deepfake videos impersonating high-level officials to trick people into paying ‘administrative fees’ for nonexistent social assistance, causing actual monetary losses. This is a direct harm to property through the misuse of an AI system.

The scheme relied on AI-generated deepfake videos to impersonate government figures, directly causing financial harm to victims who were tricked into transferring money. This fully realized harm from the malicious use of an AI system qualifies as an AI Incident under fraud and deception causing harm.

While the misuse of AI-generated deepfake videos for fraud and misinformation is real, the main focus here is on the coordinated prevention effort by Polri and Kemkomdigi (cyber patrols, socialization, and literacy). This constitutes a societal/governance response updating on existing harms, matching the criteria for Complementary Information.

The event describes a realized harm caused by an AI system: deepfake video generation was used to impersonate the president and other officials, directly leading to victim financial losses. This qualifies as an AI Incident.

The suspect deployed an AI deepfake system (face and voice synthesis) to pose as the president, vice president, and finance minister, misleading victims into transferring money under false pretenses. This misuse of AI directly caused harm (financial loss) to multiple individuals, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The deepfake videos are produced by an AI system to impersonate officials, and their malicious use directly caused financial harm to at least 11 people. Because the AI’s deployment resulted in realized wrongdoing and victim losses, this qualifies as an AI Incident.

An AI system (deepfake video generator) was used to commit fraud, directly leading to realized harm (financial loss) for victims. This constitutes an AI incident due to the system’s misuse causing actual harm.

The deepfake AI was explicitly used to impersonate high-level officials and defraud people, resulting in realized financial harm. The AI’s misuse is central to the incident, making it an AI Incident.

The article describes a perpetrator using AI deepfake technology to alter videos of President Prabowo, trick people into believing they would receive aid, and then extort money. This misuse of an AI system directly led to financial harm (fraud) of 11 victims totaling Rp30 million, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The event involves the concrete misuse of an AI system (deepfake generation) resulting in realized harm (financial fraud) and is under active investigation, meeting the definition of an AI Incident.

The suspect’s use of AI-powered deepfake technology directly caused financial harm to victims by impersonating officials and soliciting payments. This malicious use of AI resulting in actual harm meets the criteria for an AI Incident.

The incident involves the use of an AI system (deepfake video generation) to impersonate the Indonesian President and Vice President, which directly facilitated a scam requiring victims to pay ‘administration fees.’ The misuse of AI-generated content caused actual financial harm to individuals, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The incident directly involves the malicious use of an AI system (deepfake generation) that led to realized harm (financial fraud affecting at least 11 victims). This misuse of AI to produce deceptive content and facilitate a scam meets the criteria for an AI Incident.

The article describes an actual misuse of an AI system (deepfake video and audio manipulation) that directly led to harm—victims were defrauded of money by believing fake government benefit offers. This constitutes an AI Incident under the definition of an event where AI use has directly caused harm.

This is a direct case of harm caused by misuse of an AI system: deepfake technology was employed to deceive people, causing financial losses. The AI system’s role is pivotal in creating realistic fake content to perpetrate the scam, constituting an AI Incident.

The incident involves malicious use of AI (deepfake technology) to impersonate public officials, directly causing financial harm to victims through fraud. This constitutes an AI system’s use leading to realized harm, so it qualifies as an AI Incident.

The article describes a case where an AI system (deepfake technology) was used maliciously to create a fake video of President Prabowo Subianto. This video was disseminated on social media and used to defraud at least 11 victims, resulting in financial losses totaling approximately Rp 30 million. The AI system's use is central to the harm caused, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident due to direct harm (financial loss) caused by the AI-generated content's misuse.

The use of AI deepfake technology to create fake videos that directly led to financial fraud and harm to victims qualifies this as an AI Incident. The AI system's use in generating deceptive content was pivotal in enabling the scam, causing realized harm to individuals who were defrauded. Therefore, this event meets the criteria for an AI Incident due to direct harm caused by the AI system's misuse.

The event explicitly mentions the use of AI deepfake technology to create fake videos of public officials, which were used to scam victims. This constitutes an AI system's use leading directly to harm (financial loss) to individuals, fitting the definition of an AI Incident. The harm is realized and involves violations of rights and financial harm to people, caused by the AI-generated deceptive content.

The article explicitly mentions the use of AI deepfake technology to create fraudulent videos for a scam, which has already occurred and caused harm. The AI system's use is central to the incident, as it enabled the creation of convincing fake videos used to deceive people. This meets the criteria for an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to harm through fraud and violation of legal protections.

The event involves the use of AI systems both in the creation of the deepfake video and in its detection. However, the article does not report any realized harm such as injury, disruption, or rights violations caused by the video; it only reports the identification and investigation of the deepfake. Since the harm (e.g., misinformation impact) is not explicitly stated as having occurred, and the focus is on detection and investigation, this event is best classified as Complementary Information. It provides important context on AI misuse and law enforcement response but does not document a direct or indirect AI Incident or a plausible future hazard by itself.

The event explicitly mentions the use of AI deepfake technology to alter video content for fraudulent purposes, leading to actual financial harm to multiple victims. The AI system's use is central to the incident, as it enabled the creation of convincing fake videos that facilitated the scam. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to realized harm caused by the AI system's misuse.

The event explicitly involves the use of AI systems (deepfake technology) to create realistic fake videos of government officials. These videos were used to defraud victims, causing direct financial harm. The AI system's use directly led to violations of trust and financial harm to multiple victims, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The harm is realized, not just potential, and the AI system's role is pivotal in enabling the deception.

The article describes a fraud case where a deepfake video of President Parbowo was used to deceive victims, leading to financial losses (harm to persons) and potential societal harm by undermining government credibility. The deepfake video is an AI-generated manipulated content, thus involving an AI system. The harm has already occurred, making this an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event explicitly mentions the use of deepfake technology, which is an AI system, to create realistic fake videos of government officials. The perpetrator used these AI-generated videos to deceive people into believing false statements and to scam them out of money. This constitutes direct harm to individuals through fraud and financial loss, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident as the AI system's use directly led to harm.

The event describes the use of AI to generate deepfake videos of government officials offering fake financial aid, which were then used to scam victims into transferring money. The AI system's use directly led to realized harm (financial loss) to multiple individuals, constituting an AI Incident under the framework's definition of harm to persons or communities through malicious use of AI-generated content.

The event explicitly mentions the use of AI deepfake technology to create videos of government officials to commit fraud. This use of AI directly leads to harm by deceiving victims into transferring money, which is a clear case of harm to persons (financial injury). Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the direct involvement of AI in causing harm through malicious use.

The article describes a case where an individual used AI-based deepfake technology to create realistic fake videos of government officials to deceive people into transferring money under false pretenses. This use of AI directly caused harm to victims through fraud and financial loss, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident as the AI system's use led directly to harm to people (financial harm).

The event explicitly involves AI-generated deepfake videos, which are AI systems generating synthetic video and audio content. The misuse of these AI-generated videos caused direct harm by deceiving victims into financial loss, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident under harm category (e) - other significant, clearly articulated harms where the AI system's role is pivotal. Therefore, this event qualifies as an AI Incident.

The use of AI deepfake technology to create realistic fake videos of public figures to scam people constitutes an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly caused harm to individuals (financial loss) and communities (through deception). The harm is realized and ongoing, as victims have already been defrauded. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident under the framework.

The event involves the use of AI systems (deepfake technology) to create realistic fake videos of public officials, which were then used to perpetrate a scam causing financial harm to individuals. The AI system's use directly led to harm (financial loss) to multiple victims, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The harm is realized and ongoing, not just potential, and involves violation of trust and deception causing economic harm to people.

The use of AI-generated deepfake videos to impersonate public officials and defraud victims constitutes direct involvement of an AI system in causing harm. The harm here is financial loss to individuals, which qualifies as harm to persons or groups. Since the AI system's use directly led to realized harm through fraudulent activity, this event meets the criteria of an AI Incident.

The event explicitly involves the use of deepfake technology, which is an AI system capable of generating manipulated video and audio content. The perpetrator used this AI system to create convincing fake videos that misled people into transferring money, constituting direct financial harm and fraud. Additionally, the spread of false information harms public trust in government, which is a harm to communities and potentially a violation of rights to truthful information. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly caused harm (fraud and reputational damage).

The event explicitly mentions the creation and use of a deepfake video, which is an AI system generating synthetic media. The deepfake video was used to defraud individuals, resulting in direct financial harm to at least 11 victims. This constitutes a violation of rights and harm to individuals through deception and fraud. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to harm.

The article explicitly states that an AI system was used to generate deepfake videos of government officials, which were then disseminated to deceive people into transferring money under false pretenses. This constitutes direct harm to individuals (financial harm) caused by the AI system's use. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to realized harm resulting from the AI system's misuse.

The article describes a criminal case where deepfake technology, an AI system, was used to create realistic fake videos of government officials to scam people out of money. The AI system's use directly caused harm to individuals financially and involved deception, which is a violation of rights. The event is not merely a potential risk but an ongoing criminal activity with realized harm, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The article describes a perpetrator using AI-based deepfake technology to create realistic fake videos of government officials to deceive people into transferring money under false pretenses. This use of AI directly caused harm to individuals (financial loss) and constitutes a violation of law. Therefore, it qualifies as an AI Incident due to the realized harm caused by the malicious use of an AI system.

The event explicitly involves AI systems used to create deepfake videos, which are manipulated audiovisual content generated by AI. The use of these deepfakes in a scam has directly caused harm to individuals who were tricked into transferring money, constituting financial harm and violation of rights. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to realized harm (fraud and financial loss) to people.

The event involves the use of an AI system (deepfake technology) to create realistic fake videos of public officials. The AI-generated content was maliciously used to deceive victims, resulting in financial harm (fraud). This meets the criteria for an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to harm to people (financial loss) and violation of trust. The article details realized harm, not just potential harm, and the AI system's role is pivotal in enabling the fraud. Therefore, this is classified as an AI Incident.

The article explicitly mentions the use of deepfake technology, which is AI-based, to create fake videos of government officials. These videos were used to scam victims by convincing them to pay money for non-existent government aid, causing direct financial harm. The AI system's role in generating realistic fake content is pivotal to the incident. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to realized harm (financial fraud) caused by the AI system's use.

The article explicitly states that deepfake technology, an AI system, was used to create fake videos of government officials. These videos were used to deceive people into transferring money under false pretenses, constituting direct harm to individuals (financial injury). The AI system's use directly led to this harm, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The event involves the use and misuse of AI, resulting in realized harm, not just potential harm or general information about AI.

The event explicitly mentions the use of deepfake technology, which is an AI system capable of generating realistic fake videos. The suspects used this AI system to create and upload fake videos of public officials with the intent to deceive and commit fraud, which has caused direct harm. The involvement of AI in the creation and dissemination of fraudulent content meets the criteria for an AI Incident, as it has directly led to violations of law and harm to individuals and the community. The legal actions and arrests further confirm the materialization of harm rather than a potential risk.

The article explicitly mentions the use of AI-based deepfake technology to create realistic fake videos that are used to commit fraud, causing direct harm to individuals who are deceived and financially exploited. This fits the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to harm (financial fraud and deception). The coordination between law enforcement and the ministry is a response to this ongoing incident, but the primary event is the realized harm caused by the AI deepfake videos.

The article explicitly mentions the use of AI-based deepfake technology to create realistic fake videos of public officials, which were then used to scam victims out of money. This is a clear case where the AI system's use directly led to harm (financial loss) to people, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The harm is realized, not just potential, and the AI system's role is pivotal in enabling the deception.

The event explicitly involves the use of an AI system (deepfake technology) to create manipulated videos of public officials. The use of these videos directly caused harm to individuals who were defrauded of money, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The harm is realized and direct, involving violations of rights and financial harm to victims. Therefore, this is classified as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article explicitly mentions the use of AI deepfake technology to create fake videos of government officials, which were then used to deceive victims into transferring money under false pretenses. This directly caused harm to the victims (financial loss) and involved the malicious use of an AI system. The involvement of AI in the creation and dissemination of these fraudulent videos meets the criteria for an AI Incident, as the AI system's use directly led to realized harm. The event is not merely a potential risk or a complementary update but a concrete case of AI-enabled fraud.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (deepfake technology) used maliciously to create fake videos that caused direct harm: financial losses to victims and reputational damage to public figures. The use of AI was central to the crime, and the harm is realized and documented. This fits the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to harm to people (financial loss) and harm to communities (reputational damage and public trust).

Deepfake technology is explicitly described as an AI system that generates realistic fake audio, video, and images. The article details actual cases where this AI-generated content has been used to deceive and harm people financially, socially, and reputationally. These harms fall under the definitions of AI Incident, including harm to individuals and communities through fraud and disinformation. The presence of realized harm caused directly or indirectly by AI-generated deepfakes meets the criteria for AI Incident rather than AI Hazard or Complementary Information.

The event explicitly describes the use of deepfake AI technology to create manipulated videos for fraudulent purposes, leading to direct financial harm to victims. The AI system's role in generating the deepfake videos is central to the incident, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident due to realized harm (fraud and deception causing financial loss).

The event involves the use of an AI system (deepfake technology) to produce manipulated videos that directly caused harm to people through financial fraud. The AI system's use led to realized harm (victims losing money), fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The involvement of AI in the creation of deepfake videos used for deception and fraud is explicit, and the harm is direct and materialized. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident.

The article explicitly states that deepfake technology, an AI system, was used to fabricate videos of President Prabowo offering financial aid. These videos were used to deceive and defraud people, resulting in actual financial losses to victims. This constitutes direct harm to individuals (financial injury) and harm to communities through disinformation. The AI system's use was central to the incident, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident as the harm is realized and directly linked to the AI system's malicious use.

The event describes the use of AI-generated or AI-assisted deepfake videos to impersonate public officials and commit fraud. The AI system's outputs directly led to harm by enabling deception and financial or trust-related damage to victims. The involvement of AI in generating fake audiovisual content that was used maliciously to defraud people fits the definition of an AI Incident, as the harm has occurred and is directly linked to the AI system's use.

The article explicitly mentions the use of AI (deepfake technology) to create fake videos of public officials, which were then used to scam people by soliciting money under false pretenses. This constitutes a direct harm to individuals (financial harm) and harm to communities through misinformation and manipulation. The AI system's use in this criminal activity directly led to these harms, qualifying this event as an AI Incident. The involvement of law enforcement and the arrest of a suspect confirm that the harm has materialized, not just a potential risk.

The article describes a criminal case where deepfake AI technology was used to create fake videos of government officials to scam people into transferring money. The AI system's use directly caused harm through fraud and deception. The involvement of AI in creating the deepfake videos is explicit, and the harm (financial loss and deception) has materialized. Hence, this is an AI Incident as per the definitions provided.

The event involves the use of AI systems (deepfake technology) to generate fake videos and audio of public figures, which were then used in a scam causing direct financial harm to victims. This fits the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to harm (financial loss) to people. The involvement of AI is explicit, and the harm is realized, not just potential. Therefore, the classification is AI Incident.

The event involves the use of an AI system (deepfake technology) to create manipulated video content that was used to defraud victims, causing direct harm (financial loss) to individuals. The involvement of AI in the creation of the deepfake video is explicit, and the harm has materialized. The discussion about regulatory responses and education is complementary but does not negate the fact that an AI Incident has occurred. Hence, the classification is AI Incident.

The perpetrator employed an AI system (deepfake technology) to manipulate video content and deceive people, directly causing financial harm to the victims. This meets the definition of an AI Incident, as the AI-enabled misuse of deepfake generation led to clear economic injury.

The case involves malicious use of an AI system (deepfake generation) that directly led to financial harm for victims through a fraudulent government aid scheme. The incident is ongoing, with suspects arrested for AI-enabled criminal activity.

The suspect used AI-generated deepfake videos impersonating President Prabowo to deceive about social assistance payments, causing around 100 victims across multiple provinces to transfer money and suffer real financial losses. This constitutes direct harm from the misuse of an AI system.

The event involves the misuse of an AI system (deepfake generation) in the deployment of fraudulent videos, which directly led to harm (financial loss) to victims. This is a concrete incident of AI-enabled wrongdoing rather than a warning of potential harm or a mere update on policy or technology.

The event involves the malicious use of an AI system (deepfake generation) leading directly to the harm of defrauding victims. This meets the definition of an AI Incident, as the AI’s misuse caused real-world harm.

Deepfake generation is a clear use of an AI system, and its malicious use directly led to financial harm to victims. This constitutes an AI Incident under the framework because the development and use of the AI system (deepfake manipulation) has directly caused harm.

The article details how a perpetrator used AI-generated deepfake videos of public figures to deceive individuals into transferring funds under false pretenses. The use of deepfake AI directly led to financial harm to victims, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident.

The event involves an AI system (deepfake generation) whose outputs directly led to financial harm (fraud) against real people. This is not merely potential risk or background information—it is a concrete case where AI-generated content caused actual harm. Therefore, it qualifies as an AI Incident.

The suspect employed deepfake technology—an AI system—to fabricate videos of government officials, induced victims to transfer money, and successfully scammed them. This direct misuse of AI for fraudulent purposes constitutes an AI Incident.

The incident involves AI-generated deepfake videos used in an active fraud scheme. The AI system’s misuse directly caused financial harm to victims. Therefore, it constitutes an AI Incident.

The event involves direct misuse of a generative AI system (deepfake video technology) to perpetrate fraud and harm victims (financial loss). The harms have already occurred and are directly linked to the AI system’s outputs, constituting an AI Incident.

The deepfake video was generated via AI and deployed in a scam that caused real monetary losses to approximately 100 individuals. This constitutes an AI Incident because an AI system’s output (the manipulated video) directly led to harm (fraud and financial loss).

An AI system (deepfake generation) was used maliciously to produce fabricated videos and directly led to harm (scam and financial loss) for around 100 victims. This is a realized harm caused by the use of AI, making it an AI Incident.

An AI system (deepfake generator) was used and deployed to produce realistic but fake videos of President Prabowo and Minister Sri Mulyani. Those videos were then used in a scam that resulted in Rp65 million of losses for victims across multiple provinces. This constitutes an AI Incident because the AI-generated content directly caused harm (financial fraud) to real individuals.

An AI system (deepfake video generator) was used in the deliberate creation and dissemination of fake videos that tricked individuals into transferring money under false pretenses. Financial harm occurred (about Rp 65 million lost by roughly 100 victims), and the use of AI was pivotal to committing the fraud. Therefore, it constitutes an AI Incident.

The event involves the use and malicious misuse of an AI system (deepfake generation) leading directly to financial harm (fraud) and potential reputational damage to public figures. The harm has materialized, so it qualifies as an AI Incident.

This incident directly involves the use of an AI system (deepfake generative model and forensic detection) to fabricate realistic videos of public officials, which led to a successful fraud and financial losses. The AI’s role in creating the deepfake was pivotal in causing harm, so it qualifies as an AI Incident.

The article describes the malicious use of an AI system (deepfake technology) to commit fraud and cause direct financial harm to individuals. This meets the definition of an AI Incident, as the AI system’s use directly led to realized harm (property/financial loss).

The event involves the malicious use of an AI system (deepfake technology) to deceive victims, resulting in actual financial harm. This meets the definition of an AI Incident, as the AI-generated content directly facilitated fraud and injury to individuals’ property (financial loss).

The perpetrator employed deepfake technology—an AI system for face‐swapping—to create fake videos of government figures offering assistance. Victims were deceived and lost money, satisfying the definition of an AI Incident (direct harm via misuse of an AI system).

This is a realized harmful event in which the use of an AI system (deepfake generation) directly enabled fraudulent activity causing potential financial harm and deception. The deepfake technology’s deployment for criminal intent qualifies it as an AI Incident.

The case involves a deepfake video created and distributed via AI (GAN-based deepfake technology) to deceive people into transferring money for nonexistent government aid. The AI system’s misuse directly led to harm (financial losses), qualifying it as an AI Incident.

The event involves the malicious use of a deepfake AI system to impersonate public figures and solicit funds under false pretenses, directly causing financial harm to victims across multiple provinces. As the misuse of the AI system led to realized harm, it qualifies as an AI Incident.

This describes a realized harm directly caused by the malicious use of an AI system (deepfake video generation) to commit fraud and steal money from victims. Hence it is an AI Incident involving materialized financial harm.

The case involves the malicious use of an AI system (deepfake technology) to impersonate public figures and deceive victims into transferring money. This has directly caused financial harm to real individuals, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident.

Deepfake is an AI system used maliciously to produce fake videos that directly caused financial harm through deception. The police have already arrested suspects, indicating realized harm. This fits the definition of an AI Incident.

Deepfake technology (an AI system) was directly misused to create fraudulent videos for a financial scam, causing actual harm. This meets the definition of an AI Incident where the use of an AI system has led to harm.

The event involves direct misuse of an AI system (deepfake generation) to commit fraudulent deception of victims, causing harm (financial and reputational) and violating rights. This constitutes an AI Incident as defined.

A deepfake AI system was explicitly used to create fraudulent videos, and its outputs directly caused harm by tricking victims into sending money. This meets the criteria for an AI Incident, as the AI’s use resulted in actual property and financial harm.

The incident involves the use of a deepfake AI system (synthetic video and audio) to impersonate President Prabowo and Minister Sri Mulyani. This AI-enabled misuse directly led to scammers obtaining money from approximately 100 victims. The harms—fraud and financial loss—have materialized, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident.

The suspect deployed deepfake videos generated by an AI system to deceive victims into providing personal information and payments. This misuse of AI directly led to realized harm (fraud), fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The case involves the misuse of an AI system (deepfake video generation) that directly caused harm—financial losses—to victims across multiple provinces. This meets the definition of an AI Incident, as the AI’s operation (deepfake impersonation) led to realized harm.

This event describes the malicious use of an AI system (deepfake generation) which directly led to fraud and financial harm against the public. The deepfake misuse is a realized harm, meeting the definition of an AI Incident.

A deepfake AI system was intentionally used to generate fraudulent video content impersonating a public figure, leading to realized harm (victims’ monetary losses). This is a concrete example of AI misuse causing direct harm, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The misuse of AI-generated deepfake content to impersonate public figures and spread misinformation constitutes a direct harm to public discourse and trust. This describes an actual, realized event where an AI system was used maliciously, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident.

The event involves an AI system—the deepfake generation tool—used to create a fake video of Finance Minister Sri Mulyani. The AI-generated content was deployed to deceive people into transferring money, causing realized financial harm. This meets the definition of an AI Incident, as the AI system’s use directly led to harm.

Deepfake video creation using AI has already occurred and led to the spread of false information, prompting government intervention and content removal. This represents a realized harm—misinformation and reputational risk—directly caused by misuse of an AI system.

The case involves the deliberate use of AI deepfake technology to produce a fraudulent video impersonating a public figure, resulting in misinformation and potential reputational harm. The AI system’s misuse directly caused harm and triggered legal action, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident.

This is an AI Incident because the perpetrators used an AI system (deepfake video generation) for malicious fraud. The AI-generated content directly led to harms including financial loss (property harm), violations of rights (fraud, misinformation, undermining public trust), and necessitated criminal charges and law enforcement intervention.

The event describes the malicious use of an AI system (deepfake technology) to create and distribute videos impersonating President Prabowo Subianto and Finance Minister Sri Mulyani, directly leading to financial harm (fraud) against citizens. This is a realized harm caused by the AI system’s misuse, fitting the definition of an AI Incident.

The event describes the actual misuse of an AI system (deepfake video generation) to commit financial fraud, directly causing harm (victims were deceived and lost money). This meets the definition of an AI Incident, as the AI’s use led to violations of individuals’ property rights and tangible losses.

The event describes the use of AI-based deepfake video generation to impersonate government officials and defraud the public of funds. This constitutes direct harm (financial fraud) caused by the development and malicious use of an AI system.

The article describes the capture of a fraudster who used AI deepfake technology to impersonate state officials—a development in an already disclosed incident. It focuses on investigative and prosecutorial actions (arrests, press conference plans), which are follow-up details to a previously reported AI incident, without introducing new harms or plausible future risks.

The article describes realized harm—financial fraud and deception—directly enabled by AI deepfake systems. Police have already arrested suspects for creating and distributing these AI‐driven fake videos, constituting an AI‐related incident.

A deepfake video generator (an AI system) was used maliciously to impersonate government officials and defraud over 100 victims, leading to realized financial harm. This meets the criteria for an AI Incident because the AI system’s use directly caused harm (fraud and financial loss).