AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesForbes Monaco APAC v Kawajiri Seiji
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Forbes Monaco APAC v Kawajiri Seiji

High Court · Jan 21, 2026

SingaporeEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrialMonetary
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court found that the litigant cited at least nine fictitious legal authorities in his filings. The litigant attempted to attribute these to a generative AI tool, but the court rejected this as a dishonest excuse, noting that the fabricated citations appeared in multiple filings, including an affidavit, and ordered the litigant to pay 30,000 SGD in personal costs.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no less than nine fabricated legal authorities cited across David's filings, which he later sought to attribute to an internal draft generated by a generative‑AI tool. || Fabricated: Case Law | One fictitious authority (identified by defendant) appeared in David's first affidavit at p 33 para 175 and was cited to the court.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in High Court, with the listed outcome: Misconduct taken into account for adverse costs order.

Why this matter is tracked

In a Singapore High Court proceeding, the court found that the claimant's representative, David, engaged in a pattern of dishonest conduct, including the abuse of court processes and the citation of at least nine fictitious legal authorities. David attempted to attribute the inclusion of these fabricated cases to an internal draft generated by a generative AI tool, claiming it was sent in error. The court rejected this explanation as contrived and dishonest, noting that at least one fictitious authority appeared in David's first affidavit. Consequently, the court set aside a freezing order and ordered David to pay personal costs of 30,000 SGD to the defendant, characterizing his actions as an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in High Court, with the listed outcome: Misconduct taken into account for adverse costs order.

Record details

CourtHigh Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJan 21, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified generative-AI tool
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court set aside the freezing order and ordered the litigant to pay 30,000 SGD in personal costs due to his dishonest conduct and abuse of process.
Known amountSGD 30,000
Professional sanctionThe court noted that had the litigant been an advocate and solicitor of Singapore, he would have been reported to the Law Society of Singapore.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The litigant claimed the draft was generated by a generative-AI tool.

Procedural posture

The High Court of Singapore set aside a freezing order and dismissed related summonses, ordering the litigant to pay personal costs for abuse of process and the citation of fictitious authorities.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no less than nine fabricated legal authorities cited across David's filings, which he later sought to attribute to an internal draft generated by a generative‑AI tool.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | One fictitious authority (identified by defendant) appeared in David's first affidavit at p 33 para 175 and was cited to the court.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Forbes Monaco APAC v Kawajiri Seiji?
The court found that the litigant cited at least nine fictitious legal authorities in his filings. The litigant attempted to attribute these to a generative AI tool, but the court rejected this as a dishonest excuse, noting that the fabricated citations appeared in multiple filings, including an affidavit, and ordered the litigant to pay 30,000 SGD in personal costs.
Why does Forbes Monaco APAC v Kawajiri Seiji matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in High Court, with the listed outcome: Misconduct taken into account for adverse costs order.
What does the public record establish about Forbes Monaco APAC v Kawajiri Seiji?
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Forbes Monaco APAC v Kawajiri Seiji summary?
The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Roux v. van GreunenHigh Court · Jan 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsOlsen v Finansiel StabilitetHigh Court · Jan 25, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsBrightwaters Energy Limited v Eroton Exploration and Production Company LimitedHigh Court · Feb 17, 2026same court · fake citations + contractTan Hai Peng Micheal and anotherHigh Court · Nov 3, 2025same court · fake citations + contractLandscape Engineering Pte Ltd v Dot Safety Solutions Pte Ltd and anotherHigh Court · Oct 15, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsTajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja MohideenHigh Court · Sep 29, 2025same court · fake citations + contract