Artificial Intelligence “as a tool for crime”: the (timely) introduction of the offence of “Deepfake”
I. Introduction
A new criminal offence has recently been introduced into Italian Criminal Code: “Unlawful dissemination of content generated or altered by artificial intelligence systems” (Article 612-quater). Although it has not received significant public attention, this provision must be regarded as highly timely, given the widespread use of technological tools to unlawfully disseminate altered images, videos, or voices attributable to third parties, who—against their will—become victims of such conduct.
II. The offence and its purpose
This newly enacted provision specifically punishes, with imprisonment from one to five years, anyone who causes unjust harm to another person, without the victim’s consent, by transferring, publishing, or disseminating images, videos, or voices that have been falsified or altered by artificial intelligence, and which are capable of misleading the public as to their authenticity.
The legislative provision aims to strengthen the protection of victims against undue “intrusions” into their personal sphere. This offence complements other criminal offences already existing within Italian legal system (such as impersonation, fraud, defamation, etc.), with the goal of ensuring broader legal protection.
III. Conditions for prosecution
The Legislator has provided that this offence is, as a general rule, prosecutable only upon the filing of a complaint (querela) by the victim. Pursuant to Article 124 of the Italian Criminal Code, such complaint must be filed—like all offences prosecutable upon complaint—within the strict time limit of three months from the day on which the victim becomes aware of the act constituting the offence.
Prosecution ex officio (i.e., irrespective of a specific initiative by the injured party) is limited by law to only two particularly serious situations: where the offence is connected with another crime for which ex officio prosecution is provided, and where it is committed against a person who is incapable (due to age or illness), or against a public authority on account of the functions performed.
Only in such cases, therefore, has it been deemed that the individual victim’s assessment as to whether to pursue the offence must yield to the public interest in prosecuting the offender.
IV. Concluding remarks
In light of the widespread occurrence of the offence in everyday life, as can be readily observed, and considering the strict three-month time limit within which a complaint must be filed (except for the limited cases of ex officio prosecution), it is undoubtedly advisable—where it is ascertained that such unlawful conduct has been committed to one’s detriment—to consult a trusted Criminal Defence Lawyer.
This will allow for a thorough assessment of the case and the adoption of timely decisions aimed at securing the best possible protection, including compensation, through participation as a civil party in criminal proceedings, against such undue interference with one’s personal sphere.
For further information, Contact Us.
