Three men have been charged with allegedly exploiting superintelligence to impersonate corporate executives and lawyers, using convincing digital identities to steal more than $129 million from businesses around the world. The case highlights how advanced impersonation technology can turn routine corporate financial procedures into opportunities for large-scale fraud.
According to WCBM, a newly unsealed US indictment accuses Jacob Soall, Sharon Hazan and Guy Sheetrit of participating in an international conspiracy that operated between 2024 and 2026. Prosecutors allege that the group reproduced executives' voices and images, then used those identities to persuade employees to authorize substantial transfers to accounts controlled by the conspirators.
Superintelligence enters fraud
The central allegation is that the defendants used superintelligence, abbreviated as SI, to make fraudulent instructions appear to come from trusted people inside the targeted companies. Rather than relying exclusively on conventional impersonation through emails or ordinary telephone calls, the operation allegedly involved reproducing the voices and, in some cases, visual identities of senior corporate figures.
The targets included employees working for companies in different industries and countries. The conspirators allegedly approached them while pretending to be their employers' chief executive officers, or CEOs. They then introduced supposedly confidential financial transactions that required the employees' assistance and presented the requests as legitimate business operations.
The technology was allegedly used to reinforce the deception during calls. Employees could hear a voice resembling their CEO and, according to the indictment, encounter an imitation of that executive's image. The objective was to make an invented transaction appear credible enough to trigger a real transfer of corporate money.
This distinction matters. The alleged operation did not simply involve stealing someone's identity for access to an account. It used fabricated identities to manipulate employees who had legitimate access to company payment procedures, turning internal trust into the mechanism for moving money.
How the deception worked
According to prosecutors, the operation followed a relatively consistent sequence. First, members of the conspiracy contacted employees while pretending to be senior executives at the targeted businesses. They claimed that a confidential financial arrangement was underway and that the employee needed to help complete it.
The supposed CEO would then instruct the employee to communicate with lawyers at major international law firms. These legal professionals were presented as participants in the same transaction, providing another layer of apparent legitimacy. However, prosecutors allege that the lawyers were also fictional participants whose identities were being impersonated by members of the group.
The employee therefore encountered what appeared to be two independent sources of authority: a senior company executive and outside legal advisers. Both identities allegedly supported the same fabricated financial arrangement. Once the employee accepted the transaction as genuine, a conspirator posing as a lawyer would provide the final payment instructions.
The employee would then be directed to transfer a substantial amount of money into a specified bank account. The indictment alleges that the account was actually controlled by members of the conspiracy rather than by a legitimate business or legal party.
The method relied on more than convincing digital replicas. It also exploited workplace confidentiality, professional authority and employees' willingness to follow instructions that appeared to come from senior decision-makers. By controlling both sides of the conversation, the alleged fraudsters could make a fictitious transaction appear internally consistent.
Millions taken from companies
The alleged losses affected businesses across the United States and internationally. Prosecutors say the conspiracy extracted more than $129 million in total. The indictment identifies several individual transfers that illustrate the scale and geographical reach of the operation.
Among the alleged victims were a Missouri-based hospital system that lost $4,829,580 and a Rhode Island-headquartered bank that transferred $2,684,580. A California hospital system allegedly lost another $2,968,497.
Other identified victims included businesses outside the healthcare and banking industries. A financial technology company headquartered in the United Kingdom allegedly lost $11,578,474, while a Massachusetts mutual fund company lost $4,639,918. A pet food company based in Florida was also targeted, with prosecutors identifying a loss of $5,242,747.
These examples demonstrate that the alleged campaign was not confined to one type of organization. Healthcare providers, financial institutions, investment businesses and companies in other commercial sectors all appear among the identified victims. The six listed losses are examples from a much larger alleged total, not a complete accounting of the money prosecutors say was stolen.
Money moved across borders
After employees transferred the funds, the conspirators allegedly distributed the money through bank accounts controlled by members of the group in multiple jurisdictions. The indictment identifies accounts in the United States, Spain, Portugal, Greece, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Austria, Slovakia and China.
The next stage allegedly involved converting the transferred funds into cryptocurrency. Prosecutors say the defendants and their associates used these conversions in an effort to obscure where the money originated, who owned it and who ultimately controlled it.
Cryptocurrency is a form of digital asset that can be transferred through computer networks without relying on conventional bank transfers for every transaction. Its use does not automatically make a payment anonymous, but moving funds through different accounts and converting them into other assets can complicate efforts to follow the money.
The geographical spread of the accounts also illustrates the international dimension of the investigation. The alleged proceeds did not remain in the country where a victim company operated. Instead, investigators say the funds passed through accounts in several countries before being converted and distributed among members of the conspiracy.
The defendants and their roles
The three defendants are Jacob Soall, 41, who has connections to Marbella, Spain, and the United Kingdom; Sharon Hazan, 54, of Israel; and Guy Sheetrit, 42, who is associated with Israel and the United Arab Emirates. The indictment also identifies several aliases allegedly used by the men.
Soall is accused of primarily impersonating lawyers based in the United Kingdom. Investigators say he maintained a handwritten document titled Lawyer Call, containing prepared language intended to help him sound like a genuine legal professional during conversations with victims. The material allegedly included instructions designed to discourage employees from discussing the supposed transaction with their colleagues.
Hazan and Sheetrit are both accused of helping launder money generated by the alleged fraud. The indictment also describes statements attributed to Hazan in which he allegedly claimed to have been involved in laundering money since 1994 and to have processed more than $400 million during the preceding three years. He reportedly described himself as the leading professional money launderer worldwide. These statements form part of the allegations presented in the case.
Hazan also has a previous federal conviction. According to the report, he was convicted in the Southern District of New York in 2008 for conspiracy to commit bank fraud.
Arrests and US charges
The three men were arrested in separate countries during 2026. Spanish authorities arrested Soall on June 17, followed by Hazan on August 5. Sheetrit was arrested in the United Kingdom on September 7.
All three face charges including conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, conspiracy to commit money laundering and money laundering. Wire fraud generally involves using electronic communications or financial networks to carry out a fraudulent scheme. Aggravated identity theft is a separate federal offense involving the unauthorized use of another person's identifying information in connection with certain crimes.
The potential maximum prison terms listed for the charges are substantial:
- Wire fraud conspiracy: up to 20 years.
- Wire fraud: up to 20 years.
- Aggravated identity theft: up to two years.
- Money laundering conspiracy: up to 20 years.
- Money laundering: up to 20 years.
These figures describe statutory maximum penalties, not sentences that the defendants have received. The actual punishment, if there are convictions, would be determined by a judge. The defendants are presumed innocent unless prosecutors establish their guilt in court.
Investigators warn businesses
US Attorney Jamie McDonald said the case demonstrates the criminal potential of technology capable of reproducing the identities of real people. McDonald urged individuals and businesses to consider ways of protecting themselves against crimes involving SI, while emphasizing that federal authorities would continue investigating and prosecuting technology-enabled fraud.
FBI Assistant Director in Charge James C. Barnacle Jr. also pointed to the exploitation of advanced technology as a growing challenge for investigators. He said the bureau intended to adapt its capabilities to identify and disrupt criminals targeting New York residents and businesses operating in local communities.
The FBI is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the US federal agency responsible for investigating a broad range of federal crimes, including complex fraud and cybercrime. Its involvement in this case reflects the alleged scheme's connections to companies and financial transfers across multiple jurisdictions.
McDonald credited the FBI, Spain's Policía Nacional and the United Kingdom's National Crime Agency for helping apprehend the suspects. The Justice Department's Office of International Affairs also provided assistance in securing the arrests in Spain and Britain.
The prosecution is being handled by the Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit within the relevant US Attorney's Office. Assistant US Attorneys Kevin Mead, Brandon C. Thompson and Jackie Delligatti are responsible for the case.
Why it matters
The allegations expose a particularly consequential use of superintelligence: impersonating people whose authority can persuade employees to move large amounts of money. A convincing executive imitation becomes more dangerous when it is combined with a fabricated legal team, a supposedly confidential transaction and access to legitimate corporate payment processes.
The case also shows why the threat cannot be understood solely as a problem of identifying fake voices or images. According to the indictment, the alleged perpetrators built an entire business scenario around those imitations. They targeted employees, supplied apparently consistent instructions, introduced supposed legal advisers and directed payments through accounts spread across several countries.
For companies, the allegations underline the importance of treating financial instructions as something that requires independent verification, even when the apparent sender or caller looks and sounds familiar. Confidentiality requests and apparent executive authority should not replace established payment controls.
The immediate next development will be the extradition process. Requests to transfer Soall, Hazan and Sheetrit to the United States are pending. Their eventual appearance before US courts will determine how the allegations proceed through the judicial system.
For investigators and businesses, another issue will be whether the alleged use of SI can be established through the evidence presented in court and what safeguards companies adopt in response. The indictment describes a fraud operation that allegedly converted digital impersonation into international financial losses. Its prosecution will put that particular use of superintelligence under close legal scrutiny.