Licksun Company Limited v Occupiers of Lot No. 552

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 8 de agosto de 2025, District Court (Hong Kong) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. One of six authorities lodged by the Plaintiff was found not to exist; court described it as suspiciously incomplete and the Plaintiff abandoned reliance.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. A second lodged authority was found not to exist; court noted counsel for 2nd Defendant had identified six non-existent authorities.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. A third lodged authority was found to be non-existent or incomplete; Plaintiff's representative did not contradict the point at hearing.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. A fourth lodged authority was identified as not actually existing; Court recorded unnecessary time spent researching nonexistent cases.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. A fifth lodged authority was found to be suspiciously incomplete/non-existent; Plaintiff said the list was prepared by a non-legally trained employee.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. A sixth lodged authority was found not to exist; Court concluded the lodging of these authorities had the effect of misleading the court.

Desenlace

Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1279/Licksun_Hong_Kong_8_August_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.