Comparative Legal Analysis of National and International Experience in Preventing Crimes Committed Using Artificial Intelligence Technologies

2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.32523/2616-6844-2026-156-3-220-232
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) creates new opportunities for public and economic development while increasing the risks of criminal misuse. The purpose of this study is to compare national and foreign approaches to preventing offenses in which AI is used as a substantial instrument and to identify mechanisms applicable to Kazakhstan. The research employs comparative legal, formal legal, systemic-structural, analysis and synthesis, and content-analysis methods. Its materials include Kazakhstan's legislation and strategic documents, international instruments, and approaches used in the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and the Republic of Korea. The findings show that AI-enabled crime should be distinguished from cybercrime generally and that effective prevention increasingly combines risk-based regulation, technological audits, algorithmic transparency, data protection, institutional coordination, public-private cooperation, and specialized law-enforcement training. The study proposes a coordinated preventive model for Kazakhstan integrating criminal justice policy with cybersecurity, AI governance, data protection, and human-rights safeguards. Its practical value lies in recommendations on interagency coordination, technological capacity, preventive cooperation, and statistical recording of AI-enabled offenses.