Ukrainian courts began to receive videos from TikTok marked as “generated by AI” as part of the evidence base in cases. In some cases, these are videos that allegedly reproduce events related to conflicts, threats, incidents between participants in the process. In others, there are simulated emotional reactions, replicas or even visualizations of events, which, according to the party, it was not possible to record in reality. Such materials have begun to appear in both criminal and civil proceedings as a way to “show the truth” when an actual record is lacking. However, the question arises: what is evidence from a legal point of view, and what is only a visualization of the version of one of the parties?
Can a neural network product be a source of reliable information in court? To what extent is it possible to use AI activities as evidence in court proceedings? For answers to these questions, IA “FACT” turned to the lawyers of the “Repeshko and Partners” Bar Association.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into the lives of ordinary citizens. Everything that science fiction writers wrote about in books fifty or thirty years ago is now our everyday life. AI writes, draws, generates videos, predicts, models. Facing this phenomenon in practice, we can talk about new challenges: ethical, procedural, technological. And while the law does not provide an unequivocal answer, the courts actually find themselves at a crossroads between technical progress and legal certainty.
According to the definition enshrined in the EU AI Law, an artificial intelligence system is a machine with the ability to learn, which is designed to function with different levels of autonomy and can, for explicit or implicit purposes, produce results. In particular, such as predictions, recommendations or decisions affecting the physical or virtual environment.
There are three types of evidence that may be required in a legal proceeding and that can be collected with the help of artificial intelligence systems:
1) evidence from public websites (blog posts and images uploaded to social network websites);
2) material evidence (e-mails or documents in digital format that are not publicly available and are stored on some servers);
3) presumptive data about the user’s identity and metadata used to identify the person by ascertaining the source of the communication, but not the content.
The existing list does not directly contain AI-generated evidence. The latter acts only as a tool for their collection. This is once again confirmed by recent court decisions for 2025. The Kamyanets-Podilskyi City District Court of the Khmelnytsky Region received for review from the patrol police a report on an administrative offense dated January 24, 2025, on bringing a citizen to administrative responsibility for Article 122-5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. This article provides for a violation of the requirements of the legislation regarding the installation and use of special light or sound signaling devices on a vehicle and entails the imposition of a fine in the amount of five hundred tax-free minimum incomes of citizens with the confiscation of special light or sound signaling devices. Note that a special light signaling device should be understood as a light device that has a variable frequency of light pulses and that is allowed to be installed only on operational or special vehicles.
The court of first instance established that the citizen at 9:30 p.m. On January 24, 2025, on the street Khmelnytskyi highway, 11-B in the city Kamianets-Podilskyi, Khmelnytskyi region, drove a Mercedes-Benz E200 CDI vehicle, in which a light signaling device that changes the frequency of light pulses of blue and red colors and is allowed to be installed only on an operational or special vehicle was installed without permission and agreement with the National Police authorities, thereby violating the requirements of clause 31.3 g, clause 32.1 e Traffic regulations of Ukraine.
Simply put, the situation unfolded as follows – the police saw a video from “TIC-TOK” in which a citizen was driving his own car with a special light device installed. After excluding the “violator”, the police found and stopped the car. At the time of the meeting with the police, no special light device was installed on the car, but something similar to it was found in the car interior near the passenger seat in a non-working condition. Based on these circumstances, the police drew up an administrative protocol, which was sent to the court.
At the court hearing, the man pleaded not guilty and explained that he did not have the specified device in his car and did not set any beacons. He asked to close the proceedings in the case due to the absence of the prescribed administrative offense in his actions Article 122-5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. The court, having studied the protocol on the administrative offense, the certificate with attachments regarding the citizen on administrative offenses in the field of traffic safety from January 25, 2025, the video recording and other case materials, decided that it had enough evidence to prove the guilt of the citizen in committing an administrative offense for Article 122-5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, and therefore imposed on him an administrative penalty in the form of a fine in the amount of 8,500 (eight thousand five hundred) hryvnias, which is five hundred tax-free minimum incomes of citizens with the confiscation of special lighting devices. Disagreeing with the court’s decision, the citizen appealed it to the court of appeal.
On March 26, 2025, in case No. 676/729/25, the Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeals adopted a resolution by which it satisfied the husband’s appeal, annulled the resolution of the district court and adopted a new resolution by which the proceedings in the case of an administrative offense against a citizen were closed on the basis of paragraph 1 Art. 247 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, due to the absence in his actions of the composition of the administrative offense provided for Art. 122-5 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.Initially forms
In cases of administrative offenses, the decision of the court of appeals takes legal effect immediately after its issuance, is final and is not subject to appeal, that is why this act of the court is interesting from a practical point of view.
The appellate court noted that in accordance with the requirements Art. 245 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, the task of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses is: timely, comprehensive, complete and objective clarification of the circumstances of each case, its resolution in exact accordance with the law.
However, finding a citizen guilty of committing an administrative offense provided Art. 122-5 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, the court of first instance contrary to the requirements of Art. Art. 245, 247, 251, 252, 280 of the Labor Code of Ukraine did not properly establish whether an administrative offense was committed, whether this person is guilty of committing it, or whether he is subject to administrative responsibility, which led to the adoption of an illegal decision, given the following.
A person can be held administratively liable only if his actions constitute an administrative offense, which must be established by the court only after a comprehensive and complete assessment of all the evidence in the case. At the same time, the obligation to prove the presence in the actions of a person of the offense provided for by a certain article KUPAP relies on persons who are authorized to draw up protocols on administrative offenses. The objective side of Art. 122-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the installation and use of special light devices on a vehicle with a variable frequency of light pulses and without the appropriate permit.
The report on the administrative offense submitted to the court does not contain information about the technical characteristics of the device found in the Mercedes-Benz E200 CDI car, and the case file does not contain evidence that the device was installed on the vehicle (the device was discovered in the interior of the car, namely: it was lying on the foot mat on the passenger side), there is also no evidence that the device is a special signal with a variable frequency of light pulses, is in working order and is suitable before use. Moreover, the detected device was connected to the power system in the vehicle at the policeman’s direction, but the device did not work. A non-working device negates the possibility of using it at the specified time.
Also, a video from the policeman’s body camera was added to the case file, from which it is not clear that the device found in the car near the passenger seat was installed and used on the vehicle and has a variable frequency of light pulses. The specified device did not work when turned on by the policeman.
The court found the TIK-TOK video, which was added to the case file, to be improper and inadmissible evidence, since it was not mentioned in the protocol and it is impossible to establish the time, date, place, state license plate of the vehicle, and the driver from it. In addition, and most importantly, the video itself contains a note that the video was generated by AI “artificial intelligence”.
Note that pTattya 122-5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, provides responsibility for the installation and use of special devices. Therefore, the case materials had to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt”:
- The fact of installing special light signaling devices.
- The fact of using special light signaling devices on the vehicle.
- The fact that the devices that were installed on the vehicle and used by the person are in fact special light signaling devices and not ordinary decorative or auxiliary elements of the car interior.
Accordingly, each of these components is an integral part of the composition of an administrative offense. There is no data in the case file, however, that the man drove a car with installed special light devices and used them. In addition, the protocol does not indicate that the man used such special devices, where such an action as “use” is an integral part of the composition of the administrative offense under Article 122-5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.
We remind you that in accordance with Part 2, 3 Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine no one is obliged to prove his innocence in committing a crime (as well as a misdemeanor). The accusation cannot be based on evidence obtained illegally, as well as on assumptions. All doubts regarding the proven guilt of a person are interpreted in his favor.
Thus, on the basis of a comprehensive, complete and objective study of the evidence available in the case file, taking into account that due to the principle of the presumption of innocence, all doubts about the guilt of the person being prosecuted are interpreted in his favor, the appellate court came to the conclusion that the person is guilty of committing the offense provided for Art. 122-5 of the Labor Code of Ukraine not proven by admissible and reliable evidence.
Therefore, AI-generated materials are not proper evidence in court. However, we do not rule out that in the future AI-generated predictions and behavior models will become the basis for detention and sentencing, similar to the movie “Special Opinion” with Tom Cruise. Although, as we can see, even now experts cannot always distinguish a real video from one generated by AI, which is the basis for the birth of various gossip and fakes.
