Tribunale di Siracusa n. 338/2026: ~€30,206 in awards after four Cassation citations with fabricated holdings, court infers unverified generative-AI use

The problem

Before the Tribunale di Siracusa (R.G. n. 1244/2025), the plaintiff A. S.r.l. in liquidazione sued D.C. in a civil damages matter, and to argue the inapplicability of art. 1957 c.c. to liability under art. 38 c.c. its counsel cited four Court of Cassation judgments — Cass. nn. 1216/2000, 8379/2006, 14795/2003 and 4553/2004 — each accompanied by a quoted holding in the style of a literal citation (source).

What was found

The defendant produced the full texts of the four cited judgments, and none of them contained the quoted passages: the court found that “In tutti e quattro i casi i passaggi tra virgolette non trovano riscontro in alcuna pronuncia esistente” (source). It noted that the two lead citations, “le sentenze nn. 1216/2000 e 8379/2006, invocate a sostegno della tesi dell’inapplicabilità dell’art. 1957 c.c.”, did not carry the quoted language and addressed unrelated subjects (source). Il Sole 24 Ore’s read-through records the same finding, that “I virgolettati, nella loro formulazione autentica, non trovano riscontro in alcuna pronuncia” (source). Real docket numbers, fabricated holdings.

Reasoning by exclusion, the court concluded the only residual and most plausible explanation was “che il difensore si sia avvalso di uno strumento di intelligenza artificiale generativa senza sottoporre gli output ottenuti alla doverosa verifica sulle fonti primarie” — generative-AI use inferred by the court, not admitted by counsel (source). ICT Security Magazine’s independent account reaches the same conclusion, that “il difensore si era affidato a uno strumento di intelligenza artificiale generativa e aveva riportato negli atti ciò che il sistema gli aveva restituito, senza verificarlo sulle fonti primarie” (source). The court added that Large Language Models “non ‘sanno’ né ‘ricordano’ alcunché, ma si limitano a produrre sequenze di testo statisticamente plausibili”, and are not case-law databases (source).

The outcome

Holding that the plaintiff had litigated “con colpa grave, se non con mala fede” (source), the Tribunale di Siracusa (sentenza n. 338/2026, deposited 20 February 2026, G.U. Dott. Alfredo Spitaleri) rejected the claim and imposed three awards. It set €14,103.00 in legal-fee costs (compensi) to the defendant, “che si liquidano in complessivi Euro 14.103,00 per compensi” (source). It added a further €14,103.00 as reckless-litigation damages, “dell’ulteriore importo di Euro 14.103,00 ex art. 96, co. 3, c.p.” (source). And it ordered €2,000.00 to the Cassa delle Ammende under art. 96, co. 4 c.p.c., “la sanzione in favore della cassa delle ammende nella misura, prossima alla metà del massimo edittale, di Euro 2.000,00” (source). Il Sole 24 Ore totals the three bare figures: “Il prezzo dell’incoscienza: 30.206 euro in tre voci” (source). ICT Security Magazine independently records the same breakdown of “14.103 euro di spese legali, ad altrettanti 14.103 euro ex art. 96, comma 3, c.p.c. e a ulteriori 2.000 euro in favore della Cassa delle ammende ex art. 96, comma 4, c.p.c.” (source).

Weakest load-bearing source. The three component awards are each stated verbatim in the Tier-1 signed decision; the round €30,206 total is not — that figure is Il Sole 24 Ore’s own sum of the three bare awards (a Tier-2 secondary), quoted verbatim rather than computed here, and the €14,103 costs are “per compensi” before the statutory 15% forfait, 4% CPA and 22% IVA (source). The court component figures do not depend on that aggregation.

Verification status: IN CHECKING — not publish-ready, not verified. Court-origin build; a green badge is a human-only step.

How this was verified

Method. The Tier-1 signed decision PDF was fetched, byte-tied (sha1 fc96021ba7676a061e7c999363c638c1732c001d, 61,364 bytes) and text-extracted this session; every quoted figure and holding above binds to it under quotecheck. Two independent newsrooms — Il Sole 24 Ore (NT+Diritto) and ICT Security Magazine (published 22 April 2026) — carry the three-award breakdown and the court’s AI-inference finding firsthand, corroborating the critical claims at two_independent. AI use is inferred by the court by exclusion, not admitted by counsel, and the four docket numbers point to real Cassation decisions whose quoted holdings were fabricated. Date verified: 5 August 2026. This is a court-adjudicated public record; the badge stays below green pending the owner’s human sign-off.

Sources

1. Tribunale di Siracusa · Sentenza n. 338/2026 (G.U. Dott. Alfredo Spitaleri), signed decision PDF · 20 Feb 2026 · https://www.ecnews.it/app/uploads/sites/4/2026/03/tribunale-siracusa-sez-ii-sent-20-02-2026-n-338.pdf — Tier 1 (primary, signed decision)
2. Il Sole 24 Ore (NT+Diritto) · “Quattro sentenze fantasma e conto da 30.000 euro: quando l’utilizzazione acritica dell’IA entra in tribunale” · 2026 · https://ntplusdiritto.ilsole24ore.com/art/quattro-sentenze-fantasma-e-conto-30000-euro-quando-l-utilizzazione-acritica-dell-ia-entra-tribunale-AIW7MlmB — Tier 2 (independent newsroom)
3. ICT Security Magazine · “Sentenza Siracusa 338/2026: l’uso acritico dell’IA in tribunale” · 22 Apr 2026 · https://www.ictsecuritymagazine.com/notizie/sentenza-siracusa-338-2026-ai/ — Tier 2 (second independent newsroom)

Related case files

• a Spanish appellate court (TSXG Galicia) that priced 24 AI-fabricated citations at €1,800 — the same “real citations, invented holdings” pattern in a civil-law jurisdiction
• a California appellate court’s $5,000 sanction for AI-fabricated citations, showing the same fault line in a common-law system
• an Oregon appeals court that priced the fabrications per cite and per quote, a contrasting sanction formula for the same conduct
• the Sixth Circuit’s $15,000 punitive sanction levied on each attorney for fake citations, the high end of the emerging penalty range