AI-song fraudster who took $8M asks judge for no prison

A North Carolina musician who admitted collecting more than US$8 million in royalties by using bots to stream AI-made songs billions of times is asking a federal judge to give him probation instead of prison.

Michael Smith, 54, made the request in a sentencing memorandum, a written argument for a lighter punishment, filed in Manhattan federal court on 22 September in United States v. Michael Smith, No. 24 Cr. 504 (JGK). He wants no prison time. Music Business Worldwide

His lawyers argue that no individual artist or songwriter suffered any perceptible harm. They describe the losses as tiny and immeasurable, spread across millions of songwriters and artists whose royalties, the payments streaming services pay for plays, were diluted by the fake streams.

Smith pleaded guilty in March to a single count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, an agreement to use electronic communications to carry out fraud. The charge carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. As part of his plea deal, he agreed to forfeit more than US$8 million.

Federal sentencing guidelines, the range judges use as a starting point, call for between 46 and 57 months in his case. The U.S. Probation Office, which advises the court, recommended 24 months. Smith was due to be sentenced on 29 July, and that date passed without a sentencing taking place.

Prosecutors said the scheme ran on volume and automation. Smith generated thousands of AI songs and then used an organised network of bot accounts to play them. At its height, the operation used more than 1,000 bot accounts at the same time, according to the Justice Department. Billboard

The case was first charged in September 2024 as an alleged US$10 million fraud, and was described as the first-ever U.S. streaming fraud case. Smith, a Charlotte-area musician, later pleaded guilty to the smaller US$8 million figure. That guilty plea was announced by Jay Clayton, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York

What makes this stand out is the argument in favour of probation. Smith’s team accepts the money was taken, but says the harm was shared so widely that no single working musician lost enough to measure. The court must now decide whether that spread-out harm counts for less at sentencing.