Prosecutors charge three in alleged $129 million AI impersonation scheme
The indictment describes a chain of impersonations aimed at accounting staff: a confidential CEO request, an AI-assisted call and a supposed lawyer directing payment.
Loading page…
The indictment describes a chain of impersonations aimed at accounting staff: a confidential CEO request, an AI-assisted call and a supposed lawyer directing payment.
Listen to this story
The alleged operation paired CEO-like voice—and sometimes video—calls with emails and a fake lawyer’s payment instructions, combining synthetic impersonation with a prepared human performance. On Nov. 5, federal prosecutors in New York announced indictments against Jacob Soall, Sharon Hazan and Guy Sheetrit over an alleged $129 million scheme. The indictment says thousands of companies were targeted over more than 18 months; that is not a count of firms that paid. The allegations remain unproven.
Prosecutors allege the proceeds were converted into cryptocurrency and distributed to the defendants and others.
Soall allegedly posed mainly as a UK attorney and used a handwritten script titled “Lawyer Call.”
The court documents identify victims including hospital systems, a Rhode Island bank, a UK fintech firm, a mutual fund company and a pet food company.
Federal prosecutors said November 5 that three people had been indicted in New York over an alleged scheme to steal about $129 million using AI-assisted impersonations. The accusations describe accounting employees receiving confidential requests from supposed executives, followed by calls mimicking a CEO’s voice—and sometimes image—before a fake attorney directed payment.
The defendants are Jacob Soall, 41, Sharon Hazan, 54, and Guy Sheetrit, 42. They face charges of wire fraud, aggravated identity theft and money laundering. According to the indictment, the operation targeted thousands of companies worldwide over more than a year and a half. That describes the alleged targeting effort, not a count of companies that paid.
The alleged approach often began in a company’s accounting department. An email purporting to come from the CEO asked an employee to help with a confidential financial transaction, court documents say. The request presented the transaction as company business and placed the instruction in the name of the person running the organization.
A phone or video call added another layer. Prosecutors allege the defendants used AI to mimic the executive’s voice and, in some cases, appearance. The alleged deception therefore went beyond a written message: an employee could also hear someone presented as the CEO, or see an imitation during a video call.
The supposed executive then directed the employee to an attorney at a major law firm. That contact was also an impersonation, according to court documents. Rather than introducing an independent participant, the referral kept the employee dealing with the same group. The fake attorney would instruct the employee to wire large payments to bank accounts around the world.
The attorney role also involved a decidedly low-tech aid. The U.S. attorney’s office said Soall mainly impersonated UK attorneys and used a handwritten script titled “Lawyer Call” to make himself sound like a real lawyer while speaking with victims. The alleged operation paired AI-generated executive impersonations with a prepared human performance.
The victims identified in court documents span several industries. They include hospital systems in Missouri and California, a Rhode Island bank and a UK financial technology company. A Massachusetts mutual fund company and a Florida pet food company were also listed. The alleged scheme was not confined to financial firms, even though it focused on employees handling company payments.
The three defendants were arrested between June and September, AP reported. In its account carried by KOB, AP said lawyers for Soall and Sheetrit did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. It was unclear whether Hazan had an attorney. The Southern District of New York U.S. attorney’s office also did not immediately return AP’s voicemail.
The accusations remain allegations, not findings of guilt. If convicted, the defendants face maximum prison terms of 20 years on the charges other than aggravated identity theft, which carries two years, according to the U.S. attorney’s office. Those are the stated statutory penalties, not sentences imposed in this case.
Loading discussion...
Join the conversation
Explain whether the added friction would be worth it.
Be the first to share a perspective or an experience.
Reader comments
Newest comments first. Replies stay oldest first.