Article
AI-Powered Investigations: The Future of Exposing Crime
Today, I realised how dramatically AI can help in investigating criminal activities through the analysis of publicly available information. When I think about it, investigators, journalists, and state authorities have always relied on their ability to connect information, recognise patterns, and uncover hidden links. But until recently, this was purely human work—slow, exhausting, and dependent on a person’s ability to notice details and combine facts. AI can speed up this process and take it to an entirely new level.
Crime Investigation in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Take business registries, for example. Many countries now have them publicly accessible, and we can search them manually. But what if AI could automatically scan these registries, compare ownership structures, and detect suspicious patterns? What if it could identify that a certain company has an unusually high volume of transactions with another, which is linked to a politically exposed person? Or track how company ownership changes shortly before securing a major government contract? This is already possible today, yet it is not being fully utilised.
The same applies to public procurement. If the same companies repeatedly bid for tenders, if suspiciously similar pricing offers appear, or if an unknown company with minimal history unexpectedly wins, AI could quickly flag these irregularities. People might notice such patterns by chance, but a system that is continuously running and analysing all available data could detect them instantly.
Another fascinating use case is AI's ability to monitor the wealth of politicians and business figures. Today, asset declarations exist, but few systematically compare them with reality. What if AI could automatically pull data from land registries, corporate financial statements, and asset disclosures to identify discrepancies? For example, when someone with an officially low income owns luxury real estate or when expensive properties are purchased through a network of obscure companies.
Then there are social networks. Public posts, photos, location tags—all these are small puzzle pieces that can be assembled into a picture that someone never intended to reveal. AI could identify that two individuals who claim not to know each other actually spent a vacation together. Or that a politician who insists they have never met a particular business owner was in fact present at their private celebration. It’s both terrifying and fascinating how much can be reconstructed from publicly available data.
It’s not just about politics and corruption. AI can be extremely useful in investigating tax fraud as well. Large-scale money laundering schemes often involve funds moving through dozens of companies in different countries. A human analyst might spend months mapping out these transactions, but AI could accomplish this within minutes. It could track money flows, analyse blockchain transactions, and detect patterns indicative of money laundering.
The Risks of AI Being Used for Extortion and Control
I also reflect on what impact this could have on society. On one hand, there is enormous potential for uncovering fraud and criminal activity. On the other, there is the issue of privacy and the misuse of power.
Join the Library
Full access to my thoughts, personal stories, findings, and what I learn from the people I meet.
Join the Library — €29.99 per yearGet the full article by email and feel free to reply if you want to discuss it further.
Summary
Common questions on this article's topic
How can AI help investigate corruption and financial crime?
Can AI detect irregularities in public procurement?
What is OSINT and how does AI enhance it?
Can AI track money laundering across multiple countries?
What are the risks of AI-powered investigation tools?
Could AI-generated fake evidence undermine investigations?
If you have any thoughts, questions, or feedback, feel free to drop me a message at mail@richardgolian.com.
Related articles
You might say I am being too pessimistic, that I am fearmongering. Fear is useful.
No matter how I look at the future, I see very few answers and far too many questions and problems.
It is real, growing, and potentially devastating.
More articles
Europe does not have the capacity to face a full-scale, mass drone war of the kind we see in Ukraine. Three dependencies weaken it: China supplies the physical material for defence systems, the United States supplies capabilities Europe does not have, and twenty-seven states cannot agree how fast, or who pays. Rearmament plans exist, but they are being carried out slowly.
AI produces the graphic, the newsletter and the product page faster than a person. What is left for the one who used to do it is the judgement — knowing whether the output is good. But most people have worse judgement than AI. And whoever cannot judge quality cannot delegate either. How do you tell whether yours is the judgement a company relies on, or the kind it can replace?
In April, in the first part of this series, I wrote about an AI prediction system I had started building on my own machine. At the time the software was a few hours old and the prediction record was empty. The record since then has shown one thing — the system does not yet understand the market it is being asked to forecast. It can pull macro context, book value, earnings. But it cannot put those together into something that helps it understand the price.
Prague, 13 May 2026. On my way to work I started thinking about something that stayed with me for days. If most routine work on a computer disappears in the next ten years, and a large share of repetitive manual work disappears with it, what happens to the flow of money? Who pays whom for what? Which economic layers will exist, how large will they be, and what relationships will run between them? This is the six-layer map I sketched as an answer.
I am building an AI system to predict the S&P 500. It runs on my own machine, uses free public data — yfinance, FRED, the Shiller dataset — and grades every forecast against reality. This series documents the build itself: the decisions, the methodology, the mistakes. What I will eventually share from the running system is a separate question, and an honest one.
Yesterday I could not tear myself away from the computer. When I lifted my head, it was half past eight in the evening. I had been sitting alone upstairs for about three hours.
Will AI take my job? A certified Google trainer told me in June 2024 that my profession would cease to exist. Twenty-two months later, my job title has not changed — but ninety percent of what I do during the day is different. I have delegated more of my thinking to AI agents than I thought possible. I am not afraid. This is why, and what it means for anyone asking the same question.
One hour. Fifty-five minutes. That is how long it took to build what a Czech software firm had quoted at over €50,000. I built it with Claude Code. Not a prototype. Not a proof of concept. A working tool — the one the company actually needed. By the evening of the same day, it was running on staging. This is not about Claude Code. It is about what Claude Code exposes.
I have conducted roughly one hundred and fifty practical interviews over the past four years. Fifty for data specialist roles. A hundred for advertising and performance marketing specialists. Almost every one of them involved sitting down with a candidate over a practical task — something close to a real problem we actually need to solve at the company. Not theory. Not trivia. Applied problem-solving. Over time, I started noticing a pattern.
Before you can teach AI to understand anything, you need to see what it is hiding from you.
Four days in Catalonia. No computer, no AI, almost no social media. I bought this notebook so that I could write down what I would think about, and what I would come across and learn on the trip.