At least $129 million was stolen, prosecutors say, after a multi-year fraud in which three men used AI-generated voices and images to impersonate corporate chiefs and law firm attorneys and trick employees into wiring large sums into criminal-controlled accounts.
The accused: Jacob Soall, Sharon Hazan and Guy Sheetrit
The Justice Department says Jacob Soall, Sharon Hazan and Guy Sheetrit orchestrated the scheme. Court records identify Soall as a 41-year-old from Marbella, Spain; Hazan as a 54-year-old from Israel; and Sheetrit as a 42-year-old from Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Soall was arrested in Spain on June 17; Hazan was arrested in Spain on Aug. 5; and Sheetrit was arrested in the United Kingdom on Sept. 7.
Prosecutors say Soall primarily impersonated attorneys from the United Kingdom and used a handwritten script to dupe victims. They say Hazan boasted of laundering money since 1994, claimed to have laundered more than $400 million in the past three years, and was previously convicted in the Southern District of New York of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in 2008. Prosecutors allege Sheetrit laundered funds from the scheme.
After initial publication, Sheetrit’s attorneys, Sharon Nahari and Shay Shorer, emailed CyberScoop stating their client “has no connection to this matter and has had no involvement in it whatsoever,” that he is a businessman who provides cybersecurity and advisory services, and that he “maintains his complete innocence.” The story was updated on Nov. 6, 2026 to include that statement.
How the alleged scheme worked: AI deepfakes, e-signature lures and scripted attorneys
Prosecutors say the trio used AI to create deepfakes that mimicked the voices and images of company chief executive officers and lawyers at major international law firms. The scheme typically began with an email from an e-signature company in which the impersonated CEO said they were working on a “confidential financial transaction” and asked a targeted employee—usually accounting staff—to sign a nondisclosure agreement before contacting a purported attorney at a victim law firm.
The alleged pattern combined social-engineering and technical mimicry: accounting employees were selected because they had “sufficient authority to authorize large wire transfers,” prosecutors say. The conspirators then posed as the attorney the employee was instructed to contact, using AI-created audio and images and, in some cases, prerecorded or scripted readings to create the appearance of legitimacy.
Audit-ready is a season. It shouldn't be.
Evidence in spreadsheets, controls drifting between audits, frameworks multiplying on flat headcount. Nubivance runs continuous compliance on Rapid7 Cyber GRC - SOC 2, HIPAA, ISO 27001, PCI, CMMC.
End the scrambleThe victims, sums, and global money flows
Prosecutors say the defendants targeted thousands of victims between July 2024 and February 2026 and successfully defrauded companies of at least $129 million. Named victims and losses include:
- a U.K.-based financial tech company that lost almost $11.6 million;
- a Florida-based pet food company that lost $5.2 million;
- a Missouri-based hospital system that lost $4.8 million;
- a Massachusetts-based mutual fund company that lost $4.6 million;
- a California-based hospital system that lost nearly $3 million;
- a New York-based investment company that lost $2.8 million;
Prosecutors say wire transfers were sent to bank accounts controlled by co-conspirators across the globe, including accounts in the United States, Spain, Portugal, Greece, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Austria, Slovakia and China. The crew allegedly converted funds to cryptocurrency and distributed illicit proceeds among themselves and co-conspirators.
Charges, official statements, and potential penalties
The three men are charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, two counts of aggravated identity theft, money laundering conspiracy and two counts of money laundering—seven counts in all. Prosecutors say those counts carry a combined maximum sentence of 104 years in prison.
Jamie McDonald, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, warned in a statement that “Super intelligence technology offers tremendous potential, but the public should recognize that there are some who seek to use this emerging technology to pursue criminal goals.” James C. Barnacle Jr., assistant director in charge of the FBI New York field office, said the alleged scheme “demonstrates how the use of advanced technology can be exploited to commit large scale fraud,” and that the FBI is “committed to rapidly adapting our capabilities to identify, investigate, and disrupt those who seek to harm New Yorkers and businesses operating in our communities.” Prosecutors unsealed an indictment laying out the allegations.
What this means for technologists, policymakers, and affected enterprises
- Technologists and security teams: The indictment underscores how AI-generated audio and imagery can be folded into classic business-email-compromise flows. Teams that defend corporate treasury and identity are likely to watch for deepfakes paired with e-signature or NDA pretexts and to harden verification for wire authorizations.
- Policymakers and law enforcement planners: Officials quoted in the case emphasize both potential and risk from “super intelligence technology,” suggesting regulators and prosecutors will need to adapt legal and investigative tools to address cross-border money flows and crypto conversions linked to deepfake-enabled fraud.
- Affected enterprises and legal counsels: The scheme relied on impersonation of attorneys at some of the world’s largest law firms and targeted accounting staff with transfer authority—an operational reminder that verification protocols for high-value transactions and attorney confirmations can be a decisive line of defense.
The indictment lays out a global, methodical fraud that folded AI imitation into long-standing financial scams—converting stolen funds to cryptocurrency and routing proceeds through accounts worldwide. As the case moves through the courts, it will test how rapidly forensic, corporate and legal systems respond when a familiar con gains a new, technologically convincing voice.
