Deepfake Videos and Conveyancing Fraud: Practical Steps Every Conveyancer Should Be Taking Now
Conveyancing has always been an attractive target for fraudsters. Large sums of money, multiple parties, time pressure, and a heavy reliance on remote communication create a near-perfect environment for those looking to exploit weaknesses in the system.
What has changed and changed rapidly is the sophistication of the tools now available to criminals.
AI-generated deepfake videos allow fraudsters to impersonate property owners, solicitors, and other parties to a transaction with a level of realism that would have been unthinkable even two or three years ago. The Solicitors Regulation Authority flagged the risk in its updated anti-money laundering risk assessment in March 2024, warning firms that rely on video calls to identify clients that their electronic due diligence may no longer be sufficient. Since then, the technology has only improved, and the threat has only grown.
This is not a problem conveyancers can afford to watch from the sidelines. Here is what you should be doing about it.
Understanding the Threat: How Deepfakes Target Conveyancing
A deepfake is a piece of synthetic media typically video or audio generated using artificial intelligence to convincingly impersonate a real person. Modern tools can produce real-time face swaps and voice clones using only a few seconds of source material, and the results are increasingly difficult for humans to detect. Research suggests that people correctly identify high-quality deepfake videos barely a quarter of the time.
In a conveyancing context, the threat manifests primarily through vendor fraud. A fraudster identifies a property often unoccupied, mortgage-free, or owned by someone elderly or abroad and impersonates the registered owner to instruct a sale. Where a conveyancer uses a video call as part of their identity verification, a deepfake can allow the fraudster to pass that check while appearing entirely genuine.
The SRA's risk assessment made the position clear, the conveyancing process provides both the method of committing the fraud and the means of laundering the proceeds, since purchase money passes through two sets of client accounts. Fraudsters find this combination irresistible.
Example:The Arup Incident. While not a conveyancing case, the widely reported fraud against engineering firm Arup illustrates the scale of what is now possible. An employee was deceived into transferring $25 million after attending a video conference in which multiple colleagues and a senior executive appeared to be present all of them were deepfake recreations. If a multinational corporation can be fooled, a busy conveyancing practice conducting a five-minute video identification call is equally vulnerable.
Example: Vendor Fraud with Forged Identity Documents. The SRA and Propertymark have both reported a rise in cases where fraudsters use stolen or forged identity documents alongside impersonation to instruct property sales without the genuine owner's knowledge. In one reported case, a fraudster stole a homeowner's identity and used a fake driving licence to open a bank account in the owner's name to facilitate a sale. It took four years and a County Court hearing for the genuine owner to recover possession of his home. Adding deepfake video capability to this type of fraud makes it significantly harder to detect.
Step One: Stop Treating Video Calls as Reliable Identity Verification
This is the most important message for any conveyancing practice. A video call whether conducted via Zoom, Teams, FaceTime, or any other platform is not, on its own, a reliable method of verifying a client's identity. It may once have been a reasonable proxy for a face-to-face meeting, but that assumption no longer holds.
The SRA has been explicit, firms that rely on video calls to identify clients should assess whether their electronic due diligence actually protects against deepfakes, and should explore software solutions to assist in detection.
In practical terms, this means that if your current identification procedure for a seller you have not met in person consists of a video call plus a copy of a passport or driving licence, you should regard that process as insufficient. A deepfake video call combined with an AI-generated identity document which is now alarmingly easy to produce could sail through that check without raising a flag.
Step Two: Layer Your Verification
No single check will catch every fraud. The answer is to build layers of verification so that a fraudster would need to defeat multiple independent safeguards simultaneously. Consider the following:
Cross-reference against independent data sources. Use electronic identity verification services that check identity documents against government databases, credit reference data, and other independent sources. These checks are harder to fake than a visual comparison of a face to a photograph.
Require in-person identification where risk is elevated. For higher-risk transactions unoccupied properties, properties with no mortgage, sellers based overseas, instructions with unusual urgency consider insisting on a face-to-face meeting or requiring identification to be verified by another regulated professional who has met the client in person. The Legal Sector Anti-Money Laundering Guidance already provides for enhanced due diligence where the client is not met face to face.
Verify ownership independently. Do not rely solely on what the client tells you. Check the Land Registry title, cross-reference the registered owner's details against the identity documents provided, and consider whether the stated circumstances of the sale are consistent with the property's history. If the registered owner has lived at the property for twenty years but the person instructing you cannot produce a single utility bill, that is a red flag.
Use callback verification. If you receive instructions by video call or email, verify them by calling the client back on a number you have independently confirmed not a number provided in the same communication. This simple step defeats many impersonation attempts.
Step Three: Know the Red Flags
The SRA and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers have both published guidance on warning signs of vendor fraud. Conveyancers should ensure that every member of the team handling property transactions can recognise these indicators:
- The property is being sold significantly above or below market value.
- The seller is reluctant to provide supporting documentation or meet in person.
- There is pressure to complete the transaction unusually quickly.
- Instructions are for minimal work, for example, no searches requested.
- Identity documents show signs of alteration or inconsistency.
- The seller's solicitor is not located near the property and there is no obvious reason for the instruction.
- The seller has no documents linking them to the property, such as council tax or utility bills.
- The client insists on depositing funds in tranches or requests unusual payment arrangements.
Any one of these on its own may have an innocent explanation. Several appearing together should prompt serious scrutiny.
Step Four: Invest in Deepfake Detection Technology
The market for deepfake detection tools is developing rapidly. While no technology is foolproof — independent research suggests detection accuracy can drop significantly against novel deepfakes not present in training data, these tools add a meaningful layer of defence.
Options to consider include liveness detection software that analyses whether a real person is present during a video interaction by examining facial micro-expressions, lighting consistency, and other biometric signals. Some identity verification providers now integrate deepfake detection into their platforms, flagging synthetic media before it can be relied upon.
For firms that conduct significant volumes of remote identification, the investment in such technology is increasingly difficult to justify not making. The cost of a single successful vendor fraud which can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds — will almost certainly dwarf the annual licence fee for a detection tool.
Step Five: Train Your People
Technology is only as effective as the people using it. Every conveyancer, paralegal, and support staff member involved in client identification and transaction management should receive regular, practical training on deepfake risks.
This training should go beyond a general awareness session. It should cover what deepfakes look like, what subtle visual and audio cues might indicate synthetic media such as unnatural blinking patterns, lighting inconsistencies, lip-sync errors, or oddly smooth skin textures and, critically, what to do when something feels wrong. Staff should feel empowered to pause a transaction and escalate concerns without fear of being seen as obstructive.
Example: The "Too Perfect" Video Call. A conveyancer conducting a video identification notices that the client's background is perfectly still, their facial expressions seem slightly delayed relative to their speech, and there is an unusual uniformity to the lighting on their face. These may be signs of a deepfake. The conveyancer should have the confidence and the training to flag these observations, request an alternative form of verification, and involve a supervisor before proceeding.
Step Six: Review Your Professional Indemnity Position
Deepfake-enabled fraud is a developing risk, and the professional indemnity insurance market is watching closely. While there are not yet widespread reported claims arising specifically from deepfake impersonation in conveyancing, that is likely a matter of time rather than probability.
Conveyancers should review their PI cover to understand how claims arising from identity fraud particularly where the firm has followed its standard procedures but those procedures have proven inadequate would be treated. Firms should also review whether their procedures would be regarded as meeting the standard of a reasonably competent conveyancer in light of the known and published risks. The P&P Property v Owen White and Catlin Court of Appeal decision is a salutary reminder that firms which fail to follow their own due diligence procedures will struggle to defend claims arising from fraud.
Step Seven: Engage with Industry Guidance and Stay Current
The regulatory and technological landscape is moving quickly. The SRA, the CLC, HM Land Registry, the Law Society, and various industry bodies are all producing and updating guidance on fraud prevention in conveyancing. Staying current with this guidance is not optional it is a core part of meeting your regulatory obligations.
HM Land Registry's Practice Guide 67 on evidence of identity, the Legal Sector Anti-Money Laundering Guidance, and the SRA's risk assessments should all be treated as living documents that inform your firm's procedures. When they are updated, your procedures should be reviewed to ensure they remain aligned.
Between April 2024 and March 2025, 143 cases of conveyancing fraud were reported to Action Fraud, resulting in £11.7 million in losses and those are only the cases that were reported. The true figure is almost certainly higher.
The Bigger Picture
Deepfake technology is not going away. It will continue to improve in quality, decrease in cost, and become more widely accessible. Conveyancers who treat this as a temporary or marginal risk are exposing themselves, their firms, and their clients to potentially devastating consequences.
The good news is that the steps required to address the threat are neither exotic nor prohibitively expensive. They involve doing what good conveyancers have always done verifying carefully, questioning inconsistencies, layering safeguards, and staying alert but doing so with an awareness that the nature of impersonation has fundamentally changed.
The fraudster on the other end of the video call may look exactly like your client. They may sound exactly like your client. But they may not be your client. Your procedures need to account for that reality.
This article is intended as general guidance and does not constitute legal advice. Conveyancers should seek specific advice on their own procedures and regulatory obligations.
Comments
Post a Comment