Credit One Finance Limited v Cheung Yiu Cho and another
District Court · Sep 15, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- District Court
- Record ID
- credit-one-finance-limited-v-cheung-yiu-cho-and-another-2026-09-15
- Observed outcome
- None Adjudicated
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
Fabricated: Case Law | D2 cited a nonexistent or untraceable Hong Kong case. The Court stated that it could not locate the authority and rejected the alleged citation. The Court found that D2's written submissions were probably largely AI-generated, consistent with D2's prior admission that much of his trial advocacy had been generated by AI. The submissions contained nonexistent or untraceable cases, incorrect citations and paragraph references, and propositions that the cited authorities did not support. The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the stay applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success, and ordered D2 to pay costs. The Court also rejected reliance on 111 pages of new documents because the requirements for admitting new evidence on appeal were not met.
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in District Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.