Foon Yew High School Deepfake Scandal: A Legal Analysis

Introduction to Foon Yew Deepfake Case

In April 2025, a disturbing scandal emerged at Foon Yew High School in Kulai, Johor, Malaysia, involving a 16-year-old student (now expelled) accused of creating and selling AI-generated deepfake pornographic images of female schoolmates and alumni. This incident has sparked outrage, raised critical questions about digital safety in schools, and highlighted the legal challenges of addressing AI-driven abuse.

This article explores the facts of the case, the applicable Malaysian laws, the legal issues at play, potential remedies for victims, and lessons from similar cases globally.

Key Events and Findings About the Deepfake Scandal

The Foon Yew High School AI deepfake incident unfolded rapidly, with the following key events and findings:

1. Creation and Sale of Deepfake Images: A 16-year-old male student allegedly used artificial intelligence to manipulate publicly available photos from victims’ Instagram accounts, creating explicit deepfake images. These images were sold for RM 2 (approximately USD 0.45) each in a Telegram group with over 200 male members, who also shared obscene remarks about the victims. Source: The Online Citizen, April 10, 2025; SAYS, April 9, 2025.
2. Victim Impact and Public Outcry: Over 40 victims, including current students and alumni as young as 12 or 13, reported severe emotional distress, including anxiety, sleeplessness, and feelings of virtual assault. Social media posts amplified the issue, with victims and supporters condemning the school’s initial response, which included alleged victim-blaming by a disciplinary teacher who reportedly said, “Girls shouldn’t post photos online.” Source: The Online Citizen, April 10, 2025; Various X posts, April 9, 2025; China Press via SAYS, April 9, 2025.
3. School’s Response and Expulsion: On April 8, 2025, Foon Yew High School confirmed it was cooperating with police after victims filed reports. The school admitted to delays in handling the incident and, on April 10, 2025, announced the expulsion of the 16-year-old suspect, refuting claims of lenient disciplinary action. The school pledged counseling, legal aid, and stricter safety measures for victims. Source: Malay Mail, April 11, 2025;
4. Police Investigation and Arrests: The 16-year-old suspect was arrested on April 8, 2025, with his phone seized for investigation. His remand was extended by five days until April 20, 2025, to assist police inquiries. A 19-year-old accomplice, allegedly involved in distributing the images, was arrested on April 16, 2025, and remanded for six days. As of April 15, 2025, 29 police reports were lodged, and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) is aiding the investigation. Source: The Star, April 10, 2025; Malay Mail, April 17, 2025; The Straits Times, April 9, 2025.
5. Principal’s Resignation and Additional Allegations: On April 12, 2025, the principal of Foon Yew’s Kulai campus, Gan Chuang Chee, resigned amid criticism of the school’s handling of the scandal, including allegations of victim-blaming and inadequate safety protocols. Additional allegations surfaced, including a 2012 graduate’s claim of inappropriate touching by a male teacher and a 2024 incident where a student was secretly photographed while showering on campus, highlighting systemic privacy issues. Source: The Rakyat Post, April 17, 2025; Malaysiakini via SAYS, April 9, 2025.
6. Political and Community Response: Kulai MP and Deputy Communications Minister Teo Nie Ching has supported victims, accompanying them to file police reports and advocating for stricter digital safety protocols in schools. She emphasized that the incident “is not the victims’ fault” and noted that approximately 40 victims, mostly alumni, have been identified. Support organizations like the Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO) and All Women’s Action Society (AWAM) have been highlighted as resources. Source: The Straits Times, April 9, 2025; SAYS, April 9, 2025.

These events underscore the severity of AI-driven abuse and the urgent need for legal and institutional responses to protect victims and prevent recurrence.

The Law and Legal Issues of the Foon Yew Deepfake Case

The Foon Yew incident potentially involves several Malaysian laws, each addressing different aspects of the creation, distribution, and impact of AI-generated deepfake content. Below are the key legal frameworks and issues:

1. Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 (Act 792)

• Provision: Section 7 criminalizes the production, distribution, or possession of child pornography, defined as material depicting a person under 18 in a sexual manner. Penalties include up to 20 years’ imprisonment and whipping.
• Application: Since some victims were minors (aged 12 or 13), the 16-year-old suspect’s creation and sale of deepfake images likely violate this provision. The fact that the perpetrator is also a minor may influence sentencing, with courts potentially favoring rehabilitation, but the involvement of multiple victims aggravates the offense.
• Legal Issue: The act does not explicitly address AI-generated content, creating ambiguity about whether deepfakes fall under “pornography.” Courts must interpret whether manipulated images constitute “depictions” of minors, a novel issue in Malaysian jurisprudence.

2. Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588)

• Provision: Section 233 prohibits transmitting obscene, indecent, or offensive content via network facilities with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass. Penalties include a fine of up to RM 50,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both.
• Application: The suspect’s distribution of deepfake images on Telegram and Twitter violates this section, given the intent to humiliate victims. The MCMC’s involvement reflects the digital nature of the crime.
• Legal Issue: Enforcing this law across decentralized platforms like Telegram is challenging due to jurisdictional limits and anonymity. Identifying and prosecuting group members who shared or purchased the images adds complexity.

3. Penal Code (Act 574)

• Provisions:
  • Section 292: Criminalizes the sale, distribution, or possession of obscene materials, with penalties of up to three years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.
  • Section 509: Addresses acts intended to insult the modesty of a person, carrying up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.
• Application: The sale of deepfake images for profit violates Section 292, while their creation and distribution to humiliate victims breaches Section 509. These provisions apply to both minor and adult victims.
• Legal Issue: Proving intent to insult modesty or obscenity in AI-generated content requires courts to assess the perpetrator’s motives, which may be complicated by the suspect’s age and claims of “prank” or ignorance.

4. Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (Act 709)

• Provision: This act governs the processing of personal data, requiring consent for its use. Unauthorized use of photos to create deepfakes may breach data protection principles.
• Application: While primarily applicable to commercial entities, victims could argue that the school failed to protect their personal data (e.g., photos shared on school platforms), potentially leading to civil claims against the institution.
• Legal Issue: The act’s limited scope to individuals (versus organizations) restricts its use against the suspect, but it raises questions about schools’ responsibilities to safeguard student data in the digital age.

5. Civil Torts: Defamation and Invasion of Privacy

• Provisions: Victims may pursue civil claims for defamation (portraying them in a false, damaging light) or invasion of privacy (non-consensual use of their likeness). Damages can compensate for emotional distress and reputational harm.
• Application: The deepfake images defamed victims by falsely depicting them in explicit scenarios, while their creation without consent violated privacy. Claims could target the suspect or the school if negligence is proven.
• Legal Issue: Establishing liability against a minor with limited resources is difficult, shifting focus to the school’s potential negligence in preventing or responding to the incident. Proving damages for psychological harm requires robust evidence, such as medical reports.

6. Institutional Liability and Teacher Misconduct

• Provisions: The Education Act 1996 and school policies govern teacher conduct and institutional duties to ensure a safe environment. Allegations of victim-blaming or inappropriate teacher behavior (e.g., demanding a student prove menstruation) could lead to disciplinary action or civil liability for negligence.
• Application: The school’s delayed response and alleged victim-blaming may constitute a breach of its duty of care, exposing it to lawsuits. Teachers involved in misconduct face potential dismissal.
• Legal Issue: Proving systemic negligence requires evidence of recurring failures, such as the 2024 shower surveillance case, which suggests broader safety lapses. Balancing institutional accountability with individual teacher actions is complex.

These legal frameworks highlight the multifaceted nature of the case, from criminal prosecution to civil remedies and institutional accountability. However, gaps in addressing AI-specific harms, such as deepfake technology, underscore the need for legislative updates.

Possible Remedies for Victims of the Foon Yew Deepfake Case

Victims of the Foon Yew deepfake scandal have several legal and non-legal remedies to seek justice, compensation, and support. These include:

1. Criminal Prosecution

• Action: Victims can file police reports to trigger investigations under the Sexual Offences Against Children Act, Communications and Multimedia Act, and Penal Code. The ongoing investigation, with 29 reports lodged, aims to prosecute the 16-year-old suspect and 19-year-old accomplice.
• Outcome: Convictions could result in imprisonment, fines, or rehabilitative measures (e.g., counseling for the minor suspect). Courts may issue orders to remove deepfake content, though enforcement on platforms like Telegram is challenging.
• Support: Kulai MP Teo Nie Ching’s office offers assistance with filing reports, and the MCMC is working to trace digital dissemination.

2. Civil Lawsuits

• Defamation and Privacy Claims: Victims can sue the suspect for defamation or invasion of privacy, seeking damages for emotional distress and reputational harm. If the suspect’s resources are limited, claims may target the school for negligence.
• Negligence Against the School: Victims can argue that Foon Yew High School failed to implement adequate digital safety measures or respond promptly, breaching its duty of care. Successful claims could yield compensatory damages and court-ordered reforms (e.g., stricter policies).
• Legal Aid: The school has pledged legal assistance, and NGOs like WAO (+603-30008858) and AWAM (+603-78770224) offer pro bono advice. Teo Nie Ching’s office also provides legal support.

3. Psychological and Social Support

• Counseling: Foon Yew High School is providing counseling through school and external professionals to address victims’ trauma, such as anxiety and fear of further violations. NGOs like WAO and AWAM offer additional support.
• Advocacy: Victims can join public campaigns, as seen in a victim’s planned press conference on April 12, 2025, to raise awareness and push for reforms. Social media advocacy, despite risks of backlash (e.g., account suspensions), empowers victims to reclaim their narrative.

4. Administrative Remedies

• School Reforms: Victims can demand stricter regulations, comprehensive sex education, and clear penalties for misconduct, as urged in a viral video by a victim. The school’s commitment to reform and the principal’s resignation suggest responsiveness.
• Teacher Accountability: Complaints against teachers for victim-blaming or misconduct can be filed with the school board or Ministry of Education, potentially leading to suspensions or dismissals.

5. Legislative Advocacy

• Policy Changes: Victims can support calls for stronger laws on deepfake abuse, as highlighted by a 2024 Monash University Malaysia lecture on non-consensual image manipulation. Advocating for AI-specific legislation could prevent future incidents. Source: Monash Malaysia, October 21, 2024.

These remedies aim to deliver justice, compensation, and systemic change, but challenges like digital enforcement and victim trauma require ongoing support and innovation.

Similar Deepfake Cases and Their Outcomes

The Foon Yew incident is not isolated; similar cases involving AI deepfakes and non-consensual imagery have occurred globally, offering insights into legal responses and outcomes. Below are three comparable cases:

1. CaroLailai Deepfake Case (China, 2023)

• Facts: Chinese influencer “CaroLailai” discovered her face was swapped with a porn actress’s in a viral video created using deepfake technology. The video was part of an illegal industry chain distributing non-consensual content. CaroLailai reported the incident to police, highlighting privacy and reputational harm.
• Outcome: The case prompted public awareness but no specific convictions were reported. China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) had previously banned a similar deepfake app, ZAO, in 2019 for privacy violations, indicating regulatory action against platforms. CaroLailai’s advocacy led to increased scrutiny of deepfake technology, but legal gaps persisted. Source: Lexology, July 27, 2023.
• Relevance: Like Foon Yew, this case involved non-consensual deepfakes targeting a specific individual, with challenges in prosecuting perpetrators due to technological complexity and platform anonymity.

2. Guo Fraud Case (China, 2023)

• Facts: A businessman, Mr. Guo, was deceived into transferring 4.3 million yuan (approximately USD 612,000) after a video call with a deepfake impersonating his friend, created using AI face-swapping technology. The scam highlighted the financial and emotional harm of deepfake abuse.
• Outcome: The case was investigated as fraud, but specific outcomes (e.g., arrests or convictions) were not publicly reported. It underscored China’s efforts to regulate AI under existing fraud and privacy laws, with calls for stricter deepfake-specific legislation. Source: Lexology, July 27, 2023.
• Relevance: While focused on financial fraud rather than sexual abuse, this case parallels Foon Yew in demonstrating the psychological and societal impact of AI manipulation, emphasizing the need for robust legal frameworks. (In 2024, a finance worker at a multinational company in Hong Kong paid out USD 25.6 million to fraudsters impersonating as the company’s chief financial officer.)

3. Slovakia Election Deepfake (2023)

• Facts: Before Slovakia’s 2023 election, a manipulated audio clip surfaced, purporting to show Michal Šimečka, a candidate, discussing election rigging. The deepfake, created using AI, aimed to discredit him and coincided with his defeat by the pro-Moscow Smer-SSD party.
• Outcome: The clip’s authenticity and electoral impact remained under investigation, with no reported prosecutions. The incident prompted global calls for deepfake regulations, with the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act cited as a potential model for balancing innovation and harm prevention. Source: Taylor & Francis, accessed April 20, 2025.
• Relevance: This case illustrates the broader societal harm of deepfakes, akin to the reputational damage in Foon Yew, and highlights the difficulty of enforcing laws against anonymous or decentralized content.

These cases reveal common challenges: technological complexity, enforcement difficulties, and legal gaps in addressing AI-driven harm. Outcomes often involve public advocacy and regulatory pressure rather than definitive convictions, underscoring the need for Malaysia to strengthen its legal framework.

Conclusion – the Foon Yew Deepfake Scandal

The Foon Yew High School AI deepfake scandal is a wake-up call for Malaysia’s legal and educational systems. The incident, involving over 40 victims and a 16-year-old perpetrator, exposes the devastating impact of AI-driven abuse and the limitations of existing laws. Criminal prosecutions under the Sexual Offences Against Children Act, Communications and Multimedia Act, and Penal Code may be initiated, while civil remedies like defamation and negligence claims offer victims compensation and accountability.

Schools must also prioritize digital safety and ethical education to prevent recurrence. By learning from global cases, Malaysia can develop targeted legislation to combat deepfake abuse, ensuring justice for victims and a safer digital future.

Disclaimer Regarding This Article

For legal advice or support related to digital abuse, you may contact our firm or specialized organizations like the Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO) at +603-30008858 or All Women’s Action Society (AWAM) at +603-78774221.

This article was written for informational / educational purposes, with the aid of AI technology. A human was responsible for editing and proofreading. Please contact us for correction of any mistakes.

Thanks for reading!