Alleged Deepfake Video Depicts Former Malaysian Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Acryl Sani Abdullah in Financial Misconduct Context

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.

Risk classification

• Primary risk domain: 4 Malicious actors
• Primary risk subdomain: 4.3 Fraud, scams, and targeted manipulation

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.

Causal factors

• Entity: Human
• Intent: Intentional
• Timing: Post-deployment

The deepfake video was intentionally created and distributed by human actors post-deployment to damage the reputation of the former police chief.

EU AI Act risk tier

• Risk tier: 3 Limited Risk

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.

AI system and alleged parties

• AI system: None named
• AI purpose: Deepfake Video Generation; Voice Generation
• Behaviour type: Tool
• Alleged developer: Unknown deepfake technology developers
• Alleged deployer: Unknown disinformation actors targeting Royal Malaysia Police, Unknown disinformation actors in Malaysia, Misinformation spreaders, Disinformation spreaders
• Alleged harmed parties: Truth, Tan Sri Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani, Royal Malaysia Police, National security and intelligence stakeholders, General public of Malaysia, General public, Epistemic integrity

Harm severity

Highest direct severity in any category: Minor. Severity is scored from Negligible to Catastrophic in each harm category, for harm the reports describe as caused directly or indirectly by the AI system.

• Physical: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Infrastructure: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Property: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Financial: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Environmental: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Malicious content: direct Minor, indirect Negligible
• Differential treatment: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Civil rights: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Democracy: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Privacy: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Psychological: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Epistemic: direct Minor, indirect Negligible
• Child sexual exploitation and abuse: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible

Malicious content

Reported: Yes, the report describes a fake video manipulated using AI technology circulating on TikTok to spread slander.

Directly caused: A deepfake video was created and circulated on TikTok, falsely depicting the former police chief receiving financial aid.

Indirectly caused: N/A

Inferred additional harm: It is likely that the video was shared and viewed by thousands of TikTok users before being investigated and flagged by authorities.

Epistemic

Reported: Yes, the report describes a fake video manipulated using AI technology that falsely depicted official statements and actions.

Directly caused: The video fabricated a scenario where the former Inspector-General of Police allegedly received financial aid, creating false beliefs about his integrity.

Indirectly caused: N/A

Inferred additional harm: The viral nature of the video likely eroded public trust in public officials and contributed to the spread of digital misinformation on TikTok.

People affected

• Occurrences reported: 1
• People reportedly harmed: 1
• People reportedly exposed: 1

Potential causes

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.

Information quality

• Classification confidence: High
• Reason for confidence: 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.
• Ambiguities identified: The specific AI tool or platform used to generate the deepfake is not identified.
• Alternative interpretations: None. The incident is a straightforward case of AI-enabled defamation/impersonation.

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.

• Overall national security impact: Minor
• Response level: Moderate
• Scope: Single nation
• Primary target: Malaysia
• Alleged perpetrator: Unknown

Threat characteristics

• Imminence: Long-term. The incident represents an ongoing strategic concern regarding synthetic media misuse rather than an active national security crisis.
• Autonomy: Human-controlled. The AI system was utilized purely as a content-generation tool directly controlled and deployed by human actors.
• Novelty: Established threat. Deepfake impersonation of public and security figures for fraud or defamation is an established threat with numerous prior precedents.

Impact by dimension

• Physical security: Negligible. No physical threat, kinetic targeting, or critical infrastructure compromise occurred or was indicated in the incident report.
• Information security: Minor. The deepfake targeted a former Inspector-General of Police, representing a minor information security incident involving synthetic media impersonation of retired national security leadership.
• Sovereignty: Negligible. No threat to active state authority, electoral systems, or core government decision-making processes was identified.
• Economic security: Negligible. No strategic technology theft, financial system attack, or economic manipulation occurred.
• Societal stability: Minor. The synthetic video falsely depicted financial corruption in former police leadership, presenting a minor risk to public trust in law enforcement institutions.