Queens Council Candidate Charged With Forgery Over AI-Faked Endorsements
Queens Council Candidate Charged With Forgery Over AI-Faked Endorsements
The Queens County District Attorney charged former City Council candidate Jonathan Rinaldi with forgery, alleging he used AI to fabricate political endorsements and a fake New York Post article during his 2025 campaign. He faces 18 counts and is presumed innocent.
Information last verified on July 4, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.
Status: This case is at the charging and arraignment stage. Jonathan Rinaldi has been arrested and arraigned on a criminal complaint; he has not been convicted of anything. Everything described below is an allegation from the prosecution, and Rinaldi is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.
Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses New York criminal law, specifically the Queens County District Attorney's forgery prosecution under New York Penal Law Article 170. It does not address federal election law, FEC rules, or other states' deepfake or election-AI statutes. For a state-by-state look at AI-fabricated media law, see New York deepfake laws and the deepfake and AI voice cloning laws by state hub.
What Happened
The Queens County District Attorney's Office announced that Jonathan Rinaldi, 47, of Forest Hills, was arrested by the office's Detective Bureau on June 24, 2026, and arraigned the same day on a criminal complaint. The complaint charges three counts of forgery in the third degree and 15 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, all in connection with Rinaldi's unsuccessful 2025 campaign for the New York City Council seat representing District 29.
Prosecutors allege that between January 17 and November 4, 2025, Rinaldi routinely created and posted AI-generated images and videos on his campaign's Facebook and Instagram accounts that falsely depicted endorsements from people and organizations that had not actually backed him, and in some cases had endorsed his opponent, incumbent Council Member Robert Holden. According to the district attorney, the alleged fakes included an altered endorsement sheet bearing the Queens Jewish Alliance's logo, an AI-generated "face swap" image and a fabricated New York Post article claiming Holden crossed party lines to endorse Rinaldi, and AI-generated video depicting purported endorsements from a police precinct and a public elementary school. Both a police precinct and a public school are barred from making political endorsements.
Rinaldi pleaded not guilty at arraignment. Queens Criminal Court Judge Indira Khan released him with supervision and ordered him to return to court on August 19, 2026.
Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz said in a statement announcing the charges: "Enough is enough. In today's world it is important to hold people accountable for materially misrepresenting facts. As alleged, the defendant used AI to replace factual political support and launched fabricated attacks against his opponent as fact in a deliberate effort to mislead the voters ahead of a City Council election."
What the Law Actually Says
New York did not need a bespoke "AI election fraud" statute to bring this case. The complaint relies on two long-standing provisions of Article 170 of the New York Penal Law, the state's general forgery article.
Forgery in the third degree, codified at N.Y. Penal Law 170.05, applies when a person, "with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another," "falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument." It is a class A misdemeanor. Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, codified at N.Y. Penal Law 170.20, applies when a person, "with knowledge that it is forged and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another," "utters or possesses a forged instrument." It is also a class A misdemeanor. Under N.Y. Penal Law 70.15, a class A misdemeanor carries a maximum jail term of 364 days per count, the current statutory cap after a 2019 amendment reduced it from a full year. If Rinaldi were convicted on more than one count and a court imposed consecutive terms, New York law separately caps the aggregate of consecutive definite (misdemeanor) sentences at two years under N.Y. Penal Law 70.30(1)(b). That aggregate ceiling, rather than any single-count figure, is what some wire reports mean when they cite a potential two-year maximum; both numbers come from the Penal Law and describe different scenarios.
The key legal move here is definitional. New York's forgery statute defines a "written instrument" broadly enough to include images, video, and digital documents presented as authentic, which is why prosecutors can charge an AI-generated fake endorsement sheet or a fabricated news article the same way they would charge a forged check or a counterfeit ID: the alleged wrong is presenting a falsified record as genuine with intent to deceive, regardless of the tool used to create it.
That approach is distinct from the newer, purpose-built deepfake statutes that a growing number of states, including New York, have enacted to address synthetic media more directly; see New York's deepfake laws and the broader New York AI laws and regulation overview for how those separate frameworks apply to political ads and synthetic media disclosure requirements. This case shows the two tracks can coexist: general fraud statutes for the underlying deception, and newer AI-specific statutes for disclosure and labeling requirements in political advertising.
Analysis: Why This Matters
The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.
This prosecution is notable less for the technology involved than for the statute prosecutors chose not to use. Rather than waiting on, or reaching for, a deepfake-specific criminal law, the Queens DA applied New York's existing forgery framework, a body of law that predates generative AI by decades. That is consistent with a pattern seen in other AI-related prosecutions across the country: existing fraud, forgery, and impersonation statutes are often broad enough on their face to reach AI-generated fakes, because those statutes turn on the deceptive presentation of a false thing as genuine, not on how the false thing was produced.
For campaigns and candidates, the practical takeaway is that using AI to generate a "record" of an endorsement, an article, or an institutional statement does not put that content in a legal gray zone simply because the underlying image or text did not exist before a prompt created it. If the resulting material is presented as an authentic endorsement, statement, or news report from a specific person or institution, and it was not, the same forgery framework that has always applied to a printed forged document can attach. This matters beyond politics: any AI-generated content designed to pass as genuine attributed material from a real, identifiable source draws on the same legal logic.
None of this speaks to how a jury or judge will ultimately resolve this specific case. The facts here are alleged, contested by the defense as of this writing, and untested at trial. We do not predict the outcome.
How This Affects You
Campaigns, candidates, and anyone using AI tools to produce promotional or campaign material should treat AI-generated content the same way they would treat a physical document: if it is presented as coming from, or endorsed by, a real person, business, or public institution, and that source did not actually create or approve it, general forgery and fraud law can apply regardless of the production method. Public institutions such as police precincts and public schools are also generally barred from making political endorsements at all, which is a separate compliance issue from the forgery question.
This is a fast-moving area. Some states have adopted disclosure or labeling requirements specifically for AI-generated or synthetic political content, layered on top of general fraud law; the applicable rules depend on your state and the type of institution or person depicted. Readers dealing with a similar situation, whether as a campaign, a misrepresented organization, or someone who created AI content that turned out to closely resemble a real person or institution, should consult a lawyer licensed in their state about the specific facts.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers New York criminal law as reflected in sources verified on July 4, 2026. This is a pending criminal case; the charges described above are allegations only, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. Laws and the status of this case may change; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.
Sources
- Queens County District Attorney's Office: "Former City Council Candidate Charged With Forgery For Disseminating Altered Political Endorsements And Phony News Reports"
- N.Y. Penal Law 170.05, Forgery in the third degree (NY State Senate)
- N.Y. Penal Law 170.20, Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree (NY State Senate)
- N.Y. Penal Law 70.15, Sentences of imprisonment for misdemeanors and violations (NY State Senate)
- N.Y. Penal Law 70.30, Calculation of terms of imprisonment (NY State Senate)
Related articles
- New York deepfake laws: AI images, voice cloning, and penalties
- Deepfake and AI voice cloning laws by state
- New York AI laws and regulation
- AI laws and regulation in the United States
- DEFIANCE Act: deepfake victims can sue for $150K+
Last updated: 2026-07-04. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-07-04.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has Jonathan Rinaldi been convicted of a crime?
No. As of July 4, 2026, Rinaldi has been arrested and arraigned on a criminal complaint and has pleaded not guilty. He is presumed innocent unless and until convicted, and his next court date is August 19, 2026.
What charges does Jonathan Rinaldi face?
According to the Queens County District Attorney, Rinaldi faces three counts of forgery in the third degree (N.Y. Penal Law 170.05) and 15 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree (N.Y. Penal Law 170.20), both class A misdemeanors.
What is Rinaldi accused of doing?
Prosecutors allege that between January and November 2025, Rinaldi used AI to create and post fake endorsements attributed to a sitting City Council member, a civic organization, a police precinct, and a public school, plus a fabricated New York Post article, on his campaign's social media accounts.
What is forgery in the third degree under New York law?
N.Y. Penal Law 170.05 makes it a class A misdemeanor to falsely make, complete, or alter a written instrument with intent to defraud, deceive, or injure another person.
What is criminal possession of a forged instrument?
N.Y. Penal Law 170.20 makes it a class A misdemeanor to utter or possess a forged instrument, knowing it is forged, with intent to defraud, deceive, or injure another person.
Is there a specific New York law against using AI in political campaigns?
New York has separate deepfake and AI-disclosure statutes that apply to synthetic political media in some contexts, in addition to general forgery law. See our New York deepfake laws page for details on those requirements.
What is the maximum penalty if convicted?
Each forgery-related count charged here is a class A misdemeanor, which carries a maximum of 364 days in jail per count under N.Y. Penal Law 70.15. If a court convicted him on multiple counts and imposed consecutive terms, N.Y. Penal Law 70.30(1)(b) caps the aggregate of consecutive misdemeanor sentences at two years, which is the ceiling some wire reports reference. Both figures are set by statute and describe different scenarios, a single count versus stacked consecutive counts. Any actual sentence, if there were a conviction, would be up to the court.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on 4 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
New York Penal Law
§ 170.05Forgery in the third degreeIn force
Forgery in the third degree. A person is guilty of forgery in the third degree when, with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument. Forgery in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at legislation.nysenate.gov
Cited in 41 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2024
Leading cases: Dorothy M. Faison v. Tonya Lewis (New York Court of Appeals 2015, 25 N.Y.3d 220) · People v. Lopez (Criminal Court of the City of New York 2005, 8 Misc. 3d 873) · People v. Golb (New York Court of Appeals 2014, 23 N.Y.3d 455)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 170.20Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degreeIn force
Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree. A person is guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree when, with knowledge that it is forged and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he utters or possesses a forged instrument. Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at legislation.nysenate.gov
Cited in 106 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
Leading cases: People v. Dixson (Criminal Court of the City of New York 2005, 9 Misc. 3d 358) · People v. Borriello (New York Supreme Court 1992, 155 Misc. 2d 261) · People v. Stephens (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1998, 177 Misc. 2d 819)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 70.15Sentences of imprisonment for misdemeanors and violationIn force
Sentences of imprisonment for misdemeanors and violation. 1. Class A misdemeanor. A sentence of imprisonment for a class A misdemeanor shall be a definite sentence. When such a sentence is imposed the term shall be fixed by the court, and shall not exceed three hundred sixty-four days. 1-a. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, whenever the phrase "one year" or "three hundred sixty-five days" or "365 days" or any similar phrase appears in any provision of this chapter or any other law in reference to the definite sentence or maximum definite sentence of imprisonment that is imposed, or has been imposed, or may be imposed after enactment of this subdivision, for a misdemeanor conviction in this state, such phrase shall mean, be interpreted and be applied as three hundred sixty-four days. (b) The amendatory provisions of this subdivision are ameliorative and shall apply to all persons who are sentenced before, on or after the effective date of this subdivision, for a crime committed before, on or after the effective date of this subdivision.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at legislation.nysenate.gov
Cited in 209 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: People v. Janvier (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2020, 186 A.D.3d 1247) · People v. Archer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 1986, 121 A.D.2d 730) · People v. Kirkland (New York Supreme Court 1986, 131 Misc. 2d 487)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 70.30Calculation of terms of imprisonmentIn force
Calculation of terms of imprisonment. 1. * Indeterminate or determinate sentences. * NB Effective until September 1, 2027 * Indeterminate sentences. * NB Effective September 1, 2027 * An indeterminate or determinate sentence of imprisonment commences when the prisoner is received in an institution under the jurisdiction of the state department of corrections and community supervision. Where a person is under more than one indeterminate or determinate sentence, the sentences shall be calculated as follows: * NB Effective until September 1, 2027 * An indeterminate sentence of imprisonment commences when the prisoner is received in an institution under the jurisdiction of the state department of corrections and community supervision. Where a person is under more than one indeterminate sentence, the sentences shall be calculated as follows: * NB Effective September 1, 2027 * (a) If the sentences run concurrently, the time served under imprisonment on any of the sentences shall be credited against the minimum periods of all the concurrent indeterminate sentences and against the terms of all the concurrent determinate sentences.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at legislation.nysenate.gov
Cited in 528 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: People v. Ramirez (New York Court of Appeals 1996, 89 N.Y.2d 444) · The People v. Jarrod Brown (New York Court of Appeals 2015, 25 N.Y.3d 247) · People v. Buss (New York Court of Appeals 2008, 11 N.Y.3d 553)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Queens County District Attorney's Office press release: "Former City Council Candidate Charged With Forgery For Disseminating Altered Political Endorsements And Phony News Reports"(queensda.org).gov
- N.Y. Penal Law 170.05, Forgery in the third degree(nysenate.gov).gov
- N.Y. Penal Law 170.20, Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree(nysenate.gov).gov
- N.Y. Penal Law 70.15, Sentences of imprisonment for misdemeanors and violations(nysenate.gov).gov
- N.Y. Penal Law 70.30, Calculation of terms of imprisonment (aggregate cap on consecutive misdemeanor sentences)(nysenate.gov).gov