Federal Judge Allows Search of ChatGPT Records in Crypto Fraud Case


A federal judge has ruled that prosecutors can compel OpenAI to turn over ChatGPT account records belonging to Richard Kim, the former chief executive of cryptocurrency startup Zero Edge, as part of a fraud case alleging he diverted investor money into crypto trades and online gambling.

Prosecutors allege that Kim diverted about $3.8 million from a $4.3 million fundraising round for Zero Edge and that, following his arrest, he used ChatGPT to research his case, including his trial strategy. Court filings indicate that Kim may also have used the AI to generate numerous prompts related to misappropriating investor funds, cryptocurrency trading and gambling. Kim has pleaded not guilty to securities and wire fraud charges. 

AI Atlas

US District Judge Lorna Schofield on Monday rejected the defense’s attempt to shield the chatbot data, establishing that AI chat logs can be treated as third-party digital evidence subject to a search warrant. The warrant seeks Kim’s OpenAI records from October 2023 through May 2026, including prompts, responses and account information.

The case is a reminder that conversations with AI chatbots can become part of a legal record. As more people use tools like ChatGPT for research and personal advice, courts are beginning to treat AI chats like other digital records, such as your emails, texts and search history. That also means using a chatbot for legal research doesn’t automatically make the conversation private or protected. 

Can a chatbot be protected by attorney-client privilege? 

Kim’s lawyers tried to block a search warrant, arguing that the chatbot data contains privileged information and research related to the case. According to the defense, those digital records should be protected, as they would expose Kim’s internal thoughts, defense tactics and trial strategy. 

Prosecutors countered that, for the attorney-client privilege to apply, a conversation must be confidential between a human and a licensed legal professional for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. An AI chatbot cannot be a lawyer.

Schofield’s ruling does not determine whether Kim’s ChatGPT records are protected by attorney-client privilege, but it does allow the warrant to proceed, meaning the defense cannot stop OpenAI from complying. Kim may still challenge specific records afterward.

The dispute adds to a growing legal question about whether conversations with tools like ChatGPT, Gemini or Claude can remain private when they are used for legal research.

This ruling aligns with a landmark decision from earlier this year in United States v. Heppner, in which another Manhattan judge found that a defendant’s exchanges with Anthropic’s Claude chatbot were not protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product protections.

In that case, US District Judge Jed Rakoff said that AI platforms are third-party data collectors, not legal counsel. He noted that the defendant used Claude without his attorneys’ direction and that the platform’s privacy terms weakened any claim that the chats were confidential. Rakoff said AI use directed by an attorney could be treated differently.

Future cases may draw sharper lines around when AI-assisted legal work can be protected, especially if a chatbot is used at an attorney’s direction. 

It’s not exactly a digital version of Miranda rights, but the warning here is similar: Anything you type can (and will) be used against you in a court of law.

(Disclosure: Ziff Davis, CNET’s parent company, filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in 2025, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.)





Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews






It’s easy to assume that vehicles all had internal combustion engines until very recently. Gasoline and petrol engines were the standard for decades, after all, so why would early vehicles be any different? In reality, the early days of the automobile era were more varied than you might expect, and even featured a range of electric cars. Yes, despite electric vehicles not truly taking off until the 21st century, the first electric vehicles are much older than you think; drivers in the 1900s were going around town in electric vehicles — and where there are EVs, there are charging stations.

One such station, visible in the image above, was the creation of General Electric. Formally called the mercury arc rectifier, it took alternating current and sent it through vaporized mercury in a glass tube. This converted it into direct current, which powered up the EV’s battery. The woman in the image, who’s charging a Columbia Mark 68 Victrola, is standing at the control panel, which allowed a user to adjust power levels. 

These chargers could be installed everywhere, including homes, businesses, and public parking garages, supporting the electric vehicle boom of the early 20th century. While 21st-century EV chargers have come a long way from where they were, the basic building blocks are all still there, and it’s fascinating to see.

How EV chargers have evolved since the early 20th century

EV charging has changed a lot in some ways — but not in others. At the core of it all is the aforementioned conversion from AC to DC, which still happens when you charge modern EVs at standard charging stations. The difference is that your vehicle’s on-board charger performs the conversion, not the charger. Old EV chargers took between several hours and a day to charge, and current-day units can similarly take a few hours to well over a day from empty, depending on the charger’s speed. Fast chargers, which provide DC directly, can cut this down to around an hour or less.

Old-school and modern EV chargers also differ in how they provide power to the vehicle. Mercury arc rectifiers connected directly to the negative terminal of the lead-acid battery that needed charging. Nowadays, EVs use dedicated charging ports. Battery swapping was also commonplace in the early 1900s, and companies like General Electric tried to cash in by offering to replace drivers’ old, run-down batteries with new ones for a fee. That’s not yet possible with most mainstream EVs, although companies like Stellantis have tried to introduce EV battery swapping with moderate success.

Even if they were unrefined compared to today’s models, early EVs seemed to be on to something. Why, then, did electric cars fail, and how did gasoline end up becoming the predominant power source for vehicles?

What led to the downfall of the original wave of electric cars

EVs were no mere fad in the 1900s and 1910s. According to the 1900 United States census, 1,575 of the 4,192 vehicles sold that year were electric, with the value of these early EVs — $2,873,464 — accounting for more than half of the total market value of $4,899,443. It wasn’t just EVs, either; other sources of propulsion, like steam, were also vying for a foothold in the automobile market. By the 1920s and 1930s, though, these had all been superseded by the internal combustion engine.

One of the major drawbacks of early EVs was the fact that electricity was not yet widely available. Electrical hookups were a rarity outside of major cities, limiting the use of these vehicles. The lead-acid batteries they used also had their fair share of issues. They needed to be inspected, cleaned, and repaired every few days, making them more of an inconvenience than anything. Worse yet, they had poor mileage, and, with chargers possibly out of reach, many likely didn’t want to risk being stranded while out for a drive.

Eventually, price reductions for gas cars and improvements such as electric starters and better reliability prompted buyers and automakers alike to move away from electric rides. Thus, while the best-selling EVs of 2026 show that it’s a good time for EVs, this electric boom plainly isn’t the first of its kind. Early EVs eventually fizzled out, but they still set the stage for our current fascination with electric vehicles.





Source link