Rapid developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology, specifically deepfake, have created complex legal challenges in cybercrime enforcement. Deepfake technology allows hyper-realistic manipulation of audio and video, which bad actors increasingly exploit for cyber fraud and identity theft. The research gap lies in the ambiguity of traditional criminal law frameworks and existing electronic information laws in defining specific liability for AI-driven impersonation and synthetic fraud. This study aims to analyze the criminal law qualification of deepfake misuse in cyber fraud and determine the individual, corporate, and platform liability under Indonesian positive law. Using a normative legal methodology with statutory and conceptual approaches, this study examines relevant provisions in the Criminal Code (KUHP) and the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE). The results indicate that deepfake-assisted fraud fulfills the elements of electronic document forgery under Article 35 UU ITE and fraud under Article 28 paragraph (1) UU ITE alongside Article 378 KUHP. Criminal liability can be attributed to individual perpetrators based on intentionality (dolus), while platform providers may face liability under duty of care principles and corporate criminal liability provisions. The novelty of this study lies in formulating a comprehensive criminal attribution model for AI-generated synthetic content within Indonesian cyber law reform.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nisa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: