By: Alexander Santana

Artificial intelligence and the new face of crime

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the legal world at an accelerated pace. Its capabilities to analyze data, automate decisions, and generate content have opened up enormous opportunities, but also unprecedented risks. Today, AI systems can be used both to prevent and to commit crimes, creating a legal landscape that demands a swift, modern, and balanced response.

In Panama, this challenge is evident. Our criminal and procedural framework needs to be adapted to address the illicit uses of AI while simultaneously regulating its legitimate application by the authorities.

With that purpose, we propose the development of a draft bill on Artificial Intelligence and Crime, inspired by international standards such as PAcCTO 2.0 of the European Union and adapted to the Panamanian reality.

Advances and regulatory gaps

Panama has made significant progress in the area of cybercrime with Law 478 of August 4, 2025, which amended the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, strengthening international cooperation in the fight against computer crimes.

However, we still lack specific regulations on artificial intelligence. This is acknowledged by various legal and institutional stakeholders in the country. While training efforts are underway—for example, prosecutors are already being trained in the use of AI applied to criminal investigations—the legal framework remains incomplete.

This proposal seeks precisely to fill that gap, offering a legal basis to regulate both crimes committed using AI and its responsible use by the State.

Object and scope of the law

The objective of the law would be to regulate the use, development and legal consequences of AI systems in the Panamanian criminal field.

Its application would cover:

• Natural persons and legal entities who develop or use AI systems in the country.

• Judicial and criminal investigation authorities that use AI in their work.

• Any criminal act in which AI is a means, instrument or facilitator.

The purpose is to protect human rights, privacy, legal certainty and due process, while always maintaining effective human oversight of automated decisions.

New crimes linked to the use of AI

The proposal aims to define specific criminal behaviors related to artificial intelligence, such as:

• Illicit “Deepfakes”: anyone using AI to create or spread digital forgeries for the purpose of deception or profit could face prison sentences of between five and ten years.

• Criminal software: anyone who produces or distributes AI models designed to commit crimes — such as fraud, identity theft, computer intrusion or money laundering — shall also be punished.

• Transnational aggravating factor: if the crime has an international scope or involves criminal organizations, the penalty would increase.

• Corporate liability: legal entities that facilitate or benefit from these crimes would be held administratively, civilly or criminally liable.

These provisions would expand the spirit of Law 478, integrating crimes and aggravating circumstances inspired by the European standards of PAcCTO 2.0.

Artificial intelligence at the service of justice: guarantees and limits

The use of AI by judicial authorities must be strictly regulated. The future law should ensure that:

• It may only be used under an express legal basis and with judicial supervision.

• Due process and the right to defense are respected.

• The systems should be explainable and traceable, so that their operation can be audited.

• Mass surveillance and profiling without legitimate cause should be prohibited.

• Each use is recorded and subject to independent review.

The guiding principle is clear: AI can assist, but never replace human judgment.

International cooperation: a common front

AI-assisted crime knows no borders. Therefore, legislation based on PAcCTO 2.0 proposes that Panama:

• Strengthen cooperation and mutual assistance mechanisms in criminal matters.

• Adopt international standards, especially those of the European Union and Latin America.

• Participate in early warning and best practice networks on the use of AI in criminal investigations.

Only through transnational cooperation will it be possible to confront threats that move as fast as algorithms.

Ethics, rights and transparency

The regulation of artificial intelligence must be framed within ethical and human rights principles. The future law should guarantee:

• Human dignity as the central principle of all automated decisions, in accordance with the Political Constitution of the Republic of Panama.

• Algorithmic non-discrimination, avoiding biases based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

• Transparency and the right to challenge decisions resulting from the use of AI.

These principles already appear in Panamanian regulatory projects, but they must be consolidated into a law with binding force.

Criminal procedure and precautionary measures

Implementing this law will require significant procedural adjustments, including:

• To preserve digital records and metadata as part of the chain of custody.

• To allow technical audits of algorithms and datasets.

• To incorporate technological precautionary measures, such as the suspension or forensic review of suspected systems.

• To ensure that all charges are derived from a humane process with the right to challenge.

In other words: AI can be a powerful tool, but control and responsibility must remain human.

Sanctions and reparation of damages

The proposed sanctions would include:

• Prison sentence of five to ten years, depending on the severity of the crime or the financial damage determined during the investigation.

• Fines and disqualification from operating AI systems in case of illicit use.

• Strict civil liability for damages arising from negligence, lack of supervision or safety deficiencies.

These measures seek not only to punish, but also to prevent and repair the damage caused.

Institutional Implementation and Transition

The law should provide for an adaptation period of 12 to 24 months for the authorities and the private sector, as well as the creation of a National Commission on AI and Criminal Law to advise on its implementation.

It would also be necessary to strengthen the technical and legal training of prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, and specialized personnel within the judicial system. Panama has already begun this process, but it still needs to be institutionalized.

Conclusion

Panama is at a crucial juncture. Law 478 of 2025 was an important step forward, but the future demands a broader framework to regulate artificial intelligence in the criminal sphere.

A modern law will allow for the criminalization of the illicit use of AI, protect fundamental rights, and strengthen the legitimate use of these technologies by the authorities.

Regulating artificial intelligence is not just a matter of technology: it is a matter of justice, rights, and digital sovereignty.