Forbes Monaco APAC v Kawajiri Seiji
High Court · Jan 21, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- High Court
- Record ID
- forbes-monaco-apac-v-kawajiri-seiji-2026-01-21
- Observed outcome
- The 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 monetary consequence
- SGD 30,000
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in High Court, with the listed outcome: Misconduct taken into account for adverse costs order.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified generative-AI tool
- Known monetary consequence
- SGD 30,000
- 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.
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 litigant claimed the draft was generated by a generative-AI tool.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.