This is a research prototype. The data and analyses are preliminary and not yet validated — we'd welcome your .
A deepfake video circulating on TikTok in June 2025 falsely depicted former Malaysian Inspector-General of Police Acryl Sani receiving financial aid. Authorities confirmed the video was manipulated using AI and have launched an investigation under fraud and communications laws. The former official has denied the claims and filed a police report.
An alleged AI-generated video circulated on TikTok in June 2025 depicting former Malaysian Inspector-General of Police Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani endorsing or receiving funds from an individual identified as "Datuk Abdul Ghani." Authorities reportedly confirmed the video was fake and manipulated using AI. Acryl Sani filed a police report denying the claims. Selangor police are investigating the case under fraud and communications laws.
Domain classification, causal taxonomy, severity scores, and national security assessments were LLM-classified and may contain errors.
Using AI systems to gain a personal advantage over others such as through cheating, fraud, scams, blackmail or targeted manipulation of beliefs or behavior. Examples include AI-facilitated plagiarism for research or education, impersonating a trusted or fake individual for illegitimate financial benefit, or creating humiliating or sexual imagery.
The incident involves the creation of a deepfake video impersonating a former police chief to falsely depict him receiving financial aid, aiming to damage his reputation or commit fraud.
Human
Due to a decision or action made by humans
Intentional
Due to an expected outcome from pursuing a goal
Post-deployment
Occurring after the AI model has been trained and deployed
The deepfake video was intentionally created and distributed by human actors post-deployment to damage the reputation of the former police chief.
Added categories peak at 2: Minor (Epistemic Harm, Direct)
A deepfake video falsely depicted a former Malaysian Inspector-General of Police receiving financial aid. While the incident targets a former high-ranking security official, it constitutes a localized defamation and fraud case managed under standard law enforcement procedures, representing a minor national security impact.
The AI was used as a tool to manipulate and generate a deepfake video. The report states the video 'was fake and had been manipulated using artificial intelligence (AI) technology,' indicating the AI performed a specific, user-directed function of video/audio generation without autonomous agency.
Limited Risk: The report describes 'AI-generated content such as deepfakes' which are subject to transparency obligations under the EU AI Act to ensure users are aware they are interacting with synthetic media.
The AI system was used to create a fake video depicting a real person making statements and performing actions they did not do, which is the definition of deepfake video generation.
The report clearly outlines the nature of the incident, identifying the victim, the platform (TikTok), the fake content (alleged financial aid), and the technology used (AI manipulation/deepfake). There is no ambiguity about the falsity of the video as the police and the victim both confirmed it was fabricated.
None. The incident is a straightforward case of AI-enabled defamation/impersonation.
Technology
AI Deepfake Manipulation
AI technology was used to manipulate video and simulate the former IGP's voice.
Social Media Distribution
TikTok's platform allowed rapid viral dissemination of the manipulated video.
Data Inputs
Source Video and Audio Data
Publicly available media of the former IGP was used to train the AI model.
Human Factors
Lack of User Verification
Social media users shared the video without verifying its authenticity.
Malicious Intent of Creator
An individual intentionally created fake content to damage reputation.
Process and Methods
Inadequate Platform Moderation
TikTok failed to detect and block the AI-manipulated deepfake before sharing.
Regulatory Environment
Delayed Regulatory Intervention
Laws like CMA 1998 apply post-incident rather than preventing upload.
AI system involved
An AI system was involved, but the reports do not identify it.
Identified by automated extraction; can differ from the alleged developers above.
