AI face swapping scams occur frequently, how can ordinary people stop losses and protect their rights
When an "acquaintance" asks to borrow money, your eyes and ears may both be deceiving you.
I saw his face with my own eyes and heard his voice with my own ears, how could it be fake? "This is the most common confusion among victims in recent AI face swapping and onomatopoeic fraud cases reported by multiple police departments. According to the Cybersecurity Bureau of the Ministry of Public Security, since 2024, the number of telecommunications network fraud cases using AI deep forgery technology has significantly increased year-on-year, with the average loss amount per case far exceeding traditional fraud. Scammers collect photos and voice clips of target individuals through social media platforms, and then use AI tools to synthesize realistic video call images and sounds, impersonating friends, leaders, and even public security, procuratorial, and judicial personnel to induce victims to transfer money. The "three second silence method" proposed by the police - requiring the other party to perform a specific action or say a pre agreed upon code word during a video call - can indeed identify forgery to a certain extent, but this is only an end of pipe emergency measure. From a lawyer's perspective, what is truly worth understanding for ordinary people is the legal recourse path after transferring money: what legal basis should be used to pursue the money after it has been transferred? To whom are you chasing? How to chase?
Legal characterization: AI fraud is not a new offense, but a technological upgrade of traditional fraud
From a criminal law perspective, AI face swapping and onomatopoeic fraud has not created new charges. The perpetrator fabricated facts and concealed the truth, causing the victim to fall into a wrong understanding and dispose of property, which meets the constitutive elements of the crime of fraud in the Criminal Law. The real challenge lies in evidence fixation and subject identification - if the "face" you see is fake and the "voice" you hear is synthetic, who should be responsible for this loss?
There are three levels to distinguish here. The first layer consists of criminals who directly commit fraud and bear criminal responsibility for the crime of fraud; According to the provisions of the Civil Code on revocability of fraudulent acts, if one party uses fraudulent means to force the other party to commit a civil legal act against their true intention, the defrauded party has the right to request the court or arbitration institution to revoke it. This means that the victim can claim that the transfer is invalid and demand the return of the property. The second layer refers to personnel who provide AI face swapping tools, technical support, or personal information data, which may constitute accomplices to fraud or assistance in cybercrime activities. The third layer refers to social media platforms and payment platforms that have not fulfilled their audit obligations. If they fail to fulfill their obligations in accordance with the requirements of the Anti Telecommunications Network Fraud Law regarding real name registration, risk monitoring, and warning and dissuasion, they may bear corresponding administrative and civil supplementary compensation responsibilities.
48 hours after transfer: Stop payment, collect evidence, and report the case in parallel
Many victims, upon discovering they have been scammed, first react by seeking theories from scammers or repeatedly confirming, only to miss the payment stop window. According to the provisions of the Anti Telecommunications Network Fraud Law on emergency payment suspension and rapid freezing, the mechanism established by the public security organs in conjunction with relevant departments is the most direct administrative means to intercept funds. In practice, the earlier the case is reported and payment suspension is initiated after being deceived, the greater the possibility of funds being blocked; After more than 48 hours, funds often have been transferred through multiple accounts and even flowed overseas, making it increasingly difficult to recover.
The recommended sequence of operations is: first call 110 or go to the nearest police station to report the case, and at the same time call the bank customer service hotline to apply for temporary freezing of the involved account; Save all evidence in its entirety, including chat records, call screen recordings, transfer vouchers, and other party account information. Pay special attention not to delete any data, and even if the AI face swapping video cannot be played, keep the original file; Finally, cooperate with the police to retrieve IP logs, account registration information, and fund flow. There is an easily overlooked practical point here: if scammers use overseas servers and virtual currencies to receive payments, the difficulty of fund recovery is very high. At this time, the focus of rights protection should shift from recovering stolen goods to civil claims - suing the "help letter" personnel who lend bank cards and phone cards, who often have enforceable property in China.
The path of civil claims: suing cardholders and platforms, more realistic than criminal recovery such as bribery
In cases where criminal recovery is difficult, civil litigation is an important supplementary channel for recovering losses. According to the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the trial of cases related to telecommunications and network fraud, individuals who knowingly provide bank cards, payment accounts, or mobile phone cards to others who commit fraud shall not only bear criminal liability, but also civil compensation liability for the losses suffered by the victims. In practice, there are many precedents supporting victims to directly sue the "cardholder" for compensation. In such cases, the defendant's identity is clear, and there is often property available for enforcement, with relatively greater room for enforcement after the judgment.
Another noteworthy defendant is social media. If the platform fails to verify newly registered accounts in accordance with the requirements of the Anti Telecom Network Fraud Law on real name verification, or fails to provide risk warnings for abnormally high-frequency face swapping video calls, the victim can claim that the platform is at fault and demand that it bear corresponding supplementary compensation responsibilities. In 2024, courts have ruled in similar cases that platforms should bear 10% to 30% of supplementary liability. Of course, the criteria for determining platform liability have not been fully unified in judicial practice across different regions, and need to be judged based on specific cases and the platform's technical capabilities.
Pre emptive prevention: from the "three second silence method" to account grading management
The "three second silence method" essentially utilizes the time difference and action coherence defects synthesized in real-time by AI to identify forgeries, but this is not foolproof - with technological iterations, the naturalness and response speed of real-time face swapping are rapidly improving. From the perspective of risk management, ordinary people should establish institutional prevention habits: firstly, minimize the disclosure of personal biometric information and reduce the posting of clear face recognition videos and long voice messages on public social media platforms; The second is to agree on transfer codes or two-way confirmation rules with family members, upgrading "single point verification" to "multi-point verification"; The third is to use the account grading, limit, and delayed arrival functions provided by the bank to set a "cooling off period" for large transfers.
For enterprises, the risk of AI fraud is more direct. The cases of financial personnel being induced to transfer funds through forged "boss" video instructions have occurred multiple times. Enterprises should establish rigid processes such as dual person review, telephone call confirmation, and delayed receipt of large payments in accordance with the Accounting Law and internal financial systems, and cannot rely solely on video or voice instructions for loan disbursement. Once a loss occurs, the enterprise can also review whether there is any fault in its internal control, and determine the boundary of accountability to relevant personnel based on this.
AI technology has lowered the threshold for fraud, but the legal protection of property rights has not lowered the standards. From the revocation right of fraud in the Civil Code, to the emergency stop payment in the Anti Telecommunications Network Fraud Law, and to the civil recovery of aid personnel, there are many legal tools available to victims, and the key lies in the speed of action and the completeness of evidence. Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has handled cases of rights protection for victims of telecommunications network fraud, and has practical experience in assisting with payment suspension, civil claims for cardholders, and platform liability investigation. In similar situations, it is recommended to involve lawyers as soon as possible to avoid losses that cannot be compensated due to procedural errors.
