By Afifah Najwa binti Tarmizi
Introduction
When technological advancement outpaces the development of ethical standards, individuals lacking a clear moral compass and sense of boundaries may exploit these innovations to harm others. One alarming example is the misuse of artificial intelligence to produce and manipulate content through deepfake and digital sexual misconduct. Deepfake is defined as a synthetic media where a person’s likeness is digitally altered using deep learning technology to produce hyper-realistic images, audio, or videos.[1] One of the most concerning characteristics of deepfake technology is its ability to produce manipulated content that is virtually indistinguishable from authentic material, making detection of any alterations difficult.[2] Deepfake has the ability to make it appear as though individuals are saying or doing things they never actually did. This raises issues of misinformation, violates privacy, and crosses ethical boundaries. In today’s digital age, sexual misconduct is no longer confined to physical or verbal abuse. Digital violations are now included, which must be addressed within our legal frameworks.[3]
A staggering ninety-six percent of deepfake content online consists of non-consensual pornography, while the remaining portion is used for the purpose of fraud, impersonation or spreading false information.[4] Recently, in Malaysia, a disturbing case emerged in Johor, where police have received multiple reports against a teenager who allegedly created and distributed artificial intelligence AI-generated pornographic deepfake photos of students and alumni of a private secondary school in Kulai. The school had taken action by expelling the student for breaches of its code of conduct. Victims of deepfake abuse can suffer significant loss and harm, including emotional trauma, reputational damage as well as economic loss. In Malaysia, tort laws provide remedies to the victims through defamation as the cause of action. The victim may bring an action against the creator if the deepfake image or video is defamatory in nature to the victim, under the Defamation Act 1957. Although the law allows the victims to seek compensation for the loss suffered, the act of misusing deepfake technology itself remains unregulated in Malaysia. Due to the rapid development of deepfake technology, which has outpaced the development of legal framework, significant challenges in criminalising deepfake abuse have emerged.
Discussion
First and foremost, one of the challenges in tackling the issue of deepfakes in Malaysia is there is no specific legislative framework compelling deepfake technology. The laws in Malaysia only provide protection when the victim has suffered from some loss. However, there are several existing laws that provide a partial framework to address consequences of spreading of manipulated digital content. The relevant legislation that may potentially regulate the issue of deepfake is the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (“CMA”), specifically, Section 211(1), which prohibits the provision of indecent, obscene, false or offensive in character, with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any other person. As provided in Section 211(2) of the same Act, any person who commits the offence will be punished with a fine not more than RM50,000, or imprisonment for not more than one year or both, and a further fine of RM1,000 for continuing the offence after conviction. This provision is broad enough to encompass various forms of deepfake abuses, including the non-consensual pornography, which falls under “indecent or obscene content,” as stated in the provision. Moreover, impersonation, which can be classified as “false content.” Looking at the intention of the legislation, any harassment through manipulated media can also be considered. However, the scope of CMA is limited to criminalising the distribution or publication of the video through the online platform. The harmful user-generated content is not explicitly considered as a criminal offence. This indicates that individuals who create deepfake content may escape liability unless the content is published with malicious
intention.[5]
Despite the prevalence of deepfake technology in digital sexual misconduct, the Penal Code lacks specific provisions to criminalise the creation of deepfake abuses. Section 292 of the Penal Code provided that anyone who sells, distributes, publicly exhibits or has in his possession any kind of obscene material, including images and videos online, commits an offence. The provision would appear to be sufficiently wide enough to cover transmission of obscene content on the internet. However the provision does not address the issue of creation of such content unless it is distributed.[6] Moreover, the absence of clear and exhaustive definitions of synthetic and hyper-realistic content causes difficulties to address deepfake related abuses. This will result in lacunae in enforcement, including inability to prosecute the related charges.[7]This highlights the need for legislative amendments specifically targeting deepfake content. In addition, the lack of provisions for repeat offenders or organized deepfake creation or networks, highlighting the inadequacy of stronger penalties for explicit deepfake content. Section 292 does not distinguish between isolated cases and systemic abuse, such as deepfake pornographic websites or groups created in platforms like Telegram, that mass-produce and distribute manipulative deepfake contents. Thus, stronger penalties should be imposed to repeat offenders and those running the deepfake platforms.8
Furthermore, one of the greatest challenges in addressing deepfakes abuses is the difficulties of detection. Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 criminalises and imposes penalties on the creation and distribution of obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive content. However, it should be noted that the enforcement depends on identifying the perpetrators which is more complicated.[8] In criminal law, prosecutors must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt by relying on witness testimony, documents and tangible evidence. AI-generated deepfakes often evade conventional forensic examinations, leaving investigators without reliable methods to verify the authenticity.[9] This raises the issue of determining liability and identifying the perpetrators, when the evidence itself is synthetic, not physical. Additionally, deepfake creators often operate anonymously and several creators are operating outside of Malaysia, causing obstacles in enforcing laws due to being across borders and different jurisdictions.[10] These contents can be produced and disseminated within minutes, often through encrypted platforms or foreign servers.
Recommendation and Conclusion
As a suggestion to address challenges in criminalising deepfake abuse, it is important to introduce specific provisions within existing statutes, such the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and the Penal Code to explicitly define non-consensual explicit deepfakes. Malaysia can learn the approach of the United States, whereby the Defiance Act explicitly outlines what constitutes an explicit deepfake. Such provisions must go beyond ambiguous terminology such as “false image,” “altered image,” or “deepfake”. A proposed definition could be: “The creation and dissemination of sexually explicit content, generated using artificial intelligence, without the consent of the individual depicted.”.[11]
In conclusion, the rise of deepfake abuse calls for Malaysia to strengthen its legal framework, as existing laws remain inadequate to effectively address its misuse. The scope in existing laws in addressing synthetic media remains ambiguous, due to the definitional limitations that fail to encompass the complexity of AI-generated content and the deepfake technology, leading to certain grey areas becoming obvious. These challenges highlight the need for more robust legal reforms and technological solutions to effectively detect and attribute deepfake abuses in an anonymous and globalised digital environment. In 2024, Malaysia has taken preliminary steps to address the legal gaps surrounding emerging digital threats The Online Safety Act, passed but not yet in force, targeting issues such as deepfake content, financial scams, and cyberbullying. Moreover, Digital Minister, Gobind Singh Deos had announced the introduction of the AI Bill by mid-2026. This reflects the acknowledgement by the government on the need to regulate AI-Generated content. Accordingly, legislative reform must not only aim to regulate the misuse of deepfake technology but also to ensure justice and protections towards the victims of explicit deepfake abuse.
Bibliography
Statutes
Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588). Laws of Malaysia.
Defamation Act 1957 (Act 286). Laws of Malaysia.
Penal Code (Act 574). Laws of Malaysia.
Journal Articles
Alzian, Nur Sakinah. Protecting Women from Non-Consensual Explicit Deepfakes: Global
Lessons for Malaysia. Social & Economic Research Initiative, 2025. https://www.seri.my/protectingwomenfromnon-consensualexplicitdeepfakes-globalles sonsformalaysia.
Arvesh Thukru and Suyash Patil. “Deepfake Technology, From Positive Applications to
Malicious Exploits.” Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research 11, no. 10 (October 2024): 806–812. https://www.jetir.org/e.
Durães, Dalila, Freitas, Pedro Miguel, and Novais Paulo. “The Relevance of Deepfakes in the
Administration of Criminal Justice.” In Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Artificial
Intelligence and the Law, edited by Sousa Antunes, 58. Law, Governance and Technology Series. Cham: Springer, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41264-6_19.
Jalil, J.A. “Combating Child Pornography in Digital Era: Is Malaysian Law Adequate to Meet
the Digital Challenge?” Pertanika Journal of Social Science & Humanities 23, no. 5 (2015): 137–152.
Singh, Aditya Pratap. “Legal Implications of Deepfake Technology in Criminal Law.”
International Journal of Law Management & Humanities 8, no. 1 (2025): 1645–1661. https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.119051.
Tan, Zec Kie, Shao Zheng Chong, Chee Ying Kuek, and Eng Siang Tay. “Individual Legal
Protection in the Deepfake Technology Era.” Atlantis Press, n.d.: 119–129.
Westerlund, Mika. “The Emergence of Deepfake Technology: A Review.” Technology
Innovation Management Review 9, no. 11 (2019): 39–52. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1282.
[1] Arvesh Thukrul et al., “Deepfake Technology, From Positive Applications to Malicious Exploits,” Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research 11, no. 10 (October 2024): 806-812, https://www.jetir.org/e.
[2] Mika Westerlund, “The Emergence of Deepfake Technology: A Review,” Technology Innovation Management Review 9, no. 11 (2019): 39–52 https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1282.
[3] Zec Kie Tan et al., “Individual Legal Protection in the Deepfake Technology Era,” Atlantis Press, n.d., 119-129.
[4] Tan et al., “Individual Legal Protection in the Deepfake Technology Era,”119-129.
[5] Juriah Abdul Jalil, “Combating Child Pornography in Digital Era: Is Malaysian Law Adequate to Meet the Digital Challenge?,”Pertanika Journal of Social Science & Humanities 23, no. 5 (2015): 137-152.
[6] Jalil, “Combating Child Pornography in Digital Era: Is Malaysian Law Adequate to Meet the Digital Challenge?,” 137-152.
[7] Nur Sakinah Alzian. “Protecting Women from Non-Consensual Explicit Deepfakes: Global Lessons for Malaysia,” Social & Economic Research Initiative (2025): 7-8, https://www.seri.my/protectingwomenfromnon-consensualexplicitdeepfakes-globallessonsformalaysia. 8Alzian, “Protecting Women from Non-Consensual Explicit Deepfakes: Global Lessons for Malaysia,” 7-8
[8] Aditya Pratap Singh, “Legal Implications of Deepfake Technology in Criminal Law,” International Journal of Law Management & Humanities 8, no.1 (2025): 1645 – 1661, https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.119051.
[9] Dalila Durães, “The Relevance of Deepfakes in the Administration of Criminal Justice.” In:
Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence and the Law. Law, Governance and Technology Series, ed. Sousa Antunes, (Springer: Cham, 2024), 58, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41264-6_19.
[10] Singh, “Legal Implications of Deepfake Technology in Criminal Law,” 1645 – 1661
[11] Alzian, “Protecting Women from Non-Consensual Explicit Deepfakes: Global Lessons for Malaysia,” 7-8