HomeCasesGolden Sphinx Limited v Itkin

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Golden Sphinx Limited v Itkin

Royal Court (Jersey) · May 18, 2026

GBEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontract

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Affidavit cited a non-existent statute 'Loi (1839) sur les Délais de Prescription'; the Court found no such statute exists. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in Royal Court (Jersey), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Affidavit cited a non-existent statute 'Loi (1839) sur les Délais de Prescription'; the Court found no such statute exists. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in Royal Court (Jersey), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtRoyal Court (Jersey)

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateMay 18, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Affidavit cited a non-existent statute 'Loi (1839) sur les Délais de Prescription'; the Court found no such statute exists.
Fabricated: Case Law | Affidavit and submissions cited 'Tucker v Island Finance Ltd [2003] JLR 188', which the Court found does not exist.
Fabricated: Case Law | Affidavit and submissions cited 'Baker v Barclays Bank Plc [2012] JRC 187', which the Court found does not exist.
Misrepresented: Case Law | A reported case was cited as 'Re B [2012] JRC 229 — applying Article 6 ECHR', but the Court found that the cited report does not mention Article 6 (mischaracterisation of the authority).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Golden Sphinx Limited v Itkin?: Fabricated: Legal Norm | Affidavit cited a non-existent statute 'Loi (1839) sur les Délais de Prescription'; the Court found no such statute exists. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Golden Sphinx Limited v Itkin matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in Royal Court (Jersey), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Golden Sphinx Limited v Itkin?: 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.
Which source supports this Golden Sphinx Limited v Itkin 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.

BFG Corporation v. Pierce RE Holdings et al.N.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)CIBC Mortgages Inc v Reina FloresManitoba C.A. · Jun 12, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Allison v. Shutterfly LifeTouch LLCN.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Wong v. WestendorfBCCRT · Jun 8, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Sharei Torah v. HendelSC New York · Jun 1, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Blanes v. Stellers Jay Academy Inc.BC CRT · May 28, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Affidavit cited a non-existent statute 'Loi (1839) sur les Délais de Prescription'; the Court found no such statute exists. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Affidavit cited a non-existent statute 'Loi (1839) sur les Délais de Prescription'; the Court found no such statute exists.

Fabricated: Case Law | Affidavit and submissions cited 'Tucker v Island Finance Ltd [2003] JLR 188', which the Court found does not exist.

Fabricated: Case Law | Affidavit and submissions cited 'Baker v Barclays Bank Plc [2012] JRC 187', which the Court found does not exist.

Misrepresented: Case Law | A reported case was cited as 'Re B [2012] JRC 229 — applying Article 6 ECHR', but the Court found that the cited report does not mention Article 6 (mischaracterisation of the authority).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Golden Sphinx Limited v Itkin?

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Affidavit cited a non-existent statute 'Loi (1839) sur les Délais de Prescription'; the Court found no such statute exists. Outcome: Warning.

Why does Golden Sphinx Limited v Itkin matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Golden Sphinx Limited v Itkin?

Which source supports this Golden Sphinx Limited v Itkin 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.