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
HomeCasesRoll Q/25/0025
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 90/100. 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

Roll Q/25/0025

Enterprise Court Ghent · Dec 15, 2025

BelgiumEditorial impact: lowfake citationsadministrativetrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court identified that the debtor submitted fabricated case law in a request to reopen debates, likely generated by unverified AI use. Consequently, the court rejected the request to reopen on the merits but ordered a specific hearing to address potential sanctions under Article 780bis of the Judicial Code for the irresponsible use of AI.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'Cass. 25 november 2021, AR C.20.0193.F'; court verified via Google AI-mode and found the cited cassation decision/rolnummer does not exist and the provided ECLI was incorrect. || Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'Cass. 14 juni 2021, P.20.0810.N'; court checked and concluded no such Cassation judgment or ECLI exists — the reference is fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'GwH nr. 104/2017 van 6 juli 2017' as a Constitutional Court decision relevant to equality; court found no such decision at that date/number and that the cited ruling does not support the asserted proposition.
Why it matters now
Courts are using AI-assisted search to detect your AI hallucinations; a dedicated sanctions hearing is now the default response.

Why this matter is tracked

The Enterprise Court of Ghent addressed a judicial reorganization case where the debtor, BV [E.J.], submitted a request to reopen debates containing multiple fabricated legal citations. The court identified that the cited decisions from the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court did not exist, noting that the debtor likely used AI tools without verification. The court explicitly rejected the request to reopen debates, noting that the debtor failed to provide a valid reorganization plan and attempted to disrupt proceedings with non-existent jurisprudence. The court ordered a reopening of debates specifically to allow the debtor to address the potential application of Article 780bis of the Judicial Code regarding the irresponsible use of AI in legal submissions.

Operational lesson

Courts are using AI-assisted search to detect your AI hallucinations; a dedicated sanctions hearing is now the default response.

Record details

CourtEnterprise Court Ghent
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 15, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court rejected the request to reopen debates and scheduled a hearing to address potential sanctions under Article 780bis of the Judicial Code regarding the use of AI.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

The court identified the use of Google's AI-mode to verify the citations.

Procedural posture

The court issued a judgment on December 15, 2025, rejecting a request to reopen debates while simultaneously ordering a new hearing to address potential sanctions for the use of fabricated citations.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'Cass. 25 november 2021, AR C.20.0193.F'; court verified via Google AI-mode and found the cited cassation decision/rolnummer does not exist and the provided ECLI was incorrect.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'Cass. 14 juni 2021, P.20.0810.N'; court checked and concluded no such Cassation judgment or ECLI exists — the reference is fabricated.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'GwH nr. 104/2017 van 6 juli 2017' as a Constitutional Court decision relevant to equality; court found no such decision at that date/number and that the cited ruling does not support the asserted proposition.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Roll Q/25/0025?
The court identified that the debtor submitted fabricated case law in a request to reopen debates, likely generated by unverified AI use. Consequently, the court rejected the request to reopen on the merits but ordered a specific hearing to address potential sanctions under Article 780bis of the Judicial Code for the irresponsible use of AI.
Why does Roll Q/25/0025 matter for legal AI risk?
Courts are using AI-assisted search to detect your AI hallucinations; a dedicated sanctions hearing is now the default response.
What does the public record establish about Roll Q/25/0025?
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 Roll Q/25/0025 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.

Philippeaux v. United States, et al.S.D. New York · Sep 8, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Perry v. Social Security Administration, CommissionerN.D. Alabama · Aug 3, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)The JAAW Group, LLCGAO · Jul 31, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Alexander M. v. Frank BisignanoD. Maine · Jul 28, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2143 v. RobibaroOntario Condominium Authority Tribunal · Jul 28, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Kilongozi v. Minister for CitizenshipFederal Court · Jul 10, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)