A few months ago, the Central Administrative Court of Contractual Resources forced a contracting body to reevaluate an offer signed with a “scrawl.” The court raised its doubts about the “illegible graphics” of the signature, stamped on a contract of more than 120,000 euros. This is just one example of the risks of document management that flood the Administration’s archives and move huge amounts of money. The work of experts, crucial to unmasking cheaters, faces the challenge of hunting down the almost perfect fakes of artificial intelligence (AI). Currently, the electronic signature, along with the thousands of documents that are signed manually and transferred (or not) to computer media, are affected by severe risks of forgery. In the words of Miriam Company, associate lawyer at Molins Criminal Defense, “the ease with which AI has altered our perception of reality is reflected in the criminal field.” The lawyer recalls a recent case of false receipts «created with artificial intelligence, which sought to deceive companies. The simulated receipts had such a level of realism that they could fool experienced auditors.» In this scenario, experts, trained to identify false signatures, face unprecedented challenges. Traditional handwriting tests coexist with sophisticated computer skills. As Òscar Jiménez, a computer expert at the Òscar Jiménez Digital Forensics firm, explains, “many signatures are digitized or embedded in electronic documents,” so “the study is the responsibility of computer forensics.” The expert remembers a litigation in which these techniques were key regarding a PDF contract that digitally included two signatures: “The forensic examination of the file made it possible to determine exactly the date and time in which each signature was added.” On other occasions, he says, digital manipulation can hide “an image copied and pasted from another document.” Technology is gaining ground. According to Mateo Juan Gómez, managing partner of Buades Legal, the situation will be complicated in the courts. The AI will force the examination of “altered audio recordings, modified or even entirely generated photographs.” Signatures are no exception. At the end of the day, he reasons, “what is a signature if not an image, supposedly captured in handwritten form?” The lawyer asks for more “mechanisms to identify the falsification of supporting documents, even if this is carried out with a realism that is almost impossible to detect with the naked eye.” Perhaps the solution should be sought at the origin of the problem, he says: “If AI is capable of generating the forgery, it must also be able to identify it.” The work of the calligrapher expert is essential to uncover the fraud. These professionals, explains Fernando F. Ruiz, president of the National Association of Experts in Graphics and Documentoscopy (ANPEC), “analyze the writing of any person to find those graphic features that are intrinsic to it,” that is, “gestures that the individual constantly repeats in his or her graphics, and that are involuntary and unconscious in nature.” In this task, he adds, “the more features you detect and the less visible they are to the potential forger, the more value they will have for the expert.” Currently, handwriting tests are used for a wide spectrum of matters. Among them, Mateo Juan lists, litigation over commercial credit claims, in which the authenticity of payment receipts is discussed. The expert also uses these reports in cases of opposition to the exchange trial – a process that is used to cash checks, among other instruments – since «the regulations recognize, as a cause of opposition, the falsity of the signature.» Likewise, handwriting evidence is common in “eviction proceedings in which the existence of a tenancy title is used, inheritances with holographic wills and a long etcetera,” he adds. For the forger, the consequences of deception are unpredictable: those who cheat to avoid paying can end up in prison. The penalty for falsifying documents is six months to six years in prison, and many of these criminal trials have their origin in evidence provided in a civil collection process. This is confirmed by Miriam Company, accustomed to litigating criminal proceedings that had their origin in previous claims from civil jurisdiction. Calligraphers, like other experts, can be appointed by the judge or work on behalf of an individual. In the first case, they must register on the official lists of the courts, a procedure that is in charge of associations such as ANPEC. When the judicial body requires an expert, it will choose him by insaculation (drawing lots) from the list. More delicate is the expert opinion of a party, which prepares a report for a litigant to use in court. The opposing party is usually the first to fuel suspicions. The president of ANPEC, who staunchly defends the neutrality of the group, is emphatic about this: “The expert cannot prepare a report to satisfy a demand.” Ruiz complains that “many times, when we work as a party expert, the Administration of Justice gives us less veracity than the official expert, when it should never be like that.” Lawyers are aware of the problem. For Miriam Company, objectivity is the “great Achilles heel.” And, he points out, “it is common for two contradictory expert opinions to coexist” regarding the authenticity of a signature. The judge, in the end, “must use his healthy criticism to choose one report or another.” In reality, the lawyer reflects, the reports do not lack objectivity: «Science does not offer absolute certainties, but rather conclusions based on technical and probabilistic criteria.»
The honesty of the expert
Lawyer Mateo Juan remembers a conflict in which a potential client denied having signed a debt acknowledgment document. The success of the case depended on the authenticity of the rubric. However, the lawyer hired an expert who confirmed his suspicions: «The opinion determined that the handwritten statements of the document and the signature had actually been issued by my client, contrary to what he perjured.» Finally, the aforementioned confessed to having signed the document with a scribble to later defend that it was not his signature. The expert did an impeccable job and avoided greater harm.