Israeli Official Arrested in Las Vegas Stirs Rumours of FBI Interference
- Southerton Business Times
- Aug 22
- 2 min read

The arrest of Tom Artiom Alexandrovich, a senior Israeli cybersecurity official, in Las Vegas has stirred sharp accusations that the FBI colluded in his release, and that the prosecutor’s oversight may have been influenced by shared national ties. On August 7, Alexandrovich, head of the Technological Defense Division at Israel’s National Cyber Directorate, was arrested during a sting operation by Nevada’s Internet Crimes Against Children task force. He believed he was meeting a 15-year-old girl for sexual contact—hence bringing a condom—and arranging a trip to a Cirque du Soleil show. The “girl” was in fact an undercover officer. Alexandrovich claimed he thought she was 18 and was “embarrassed” by the arrest. He posted a $10,000 bond and returned to Israel, with local officials insisting he was merely questioned abroad, not formally held.
U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene publicly accused American authorities of “releasing a child sex predator from Israel” and implied Washington may have intervened. The U.S. State Department swiftly refuted these allegations, stating no government involvement, and DOJ officials confirmed the bail was procedurally standard. Rumor also swirled that the district attorney prosecuting the case, Steve Wolfson, might have underperformed because of shared Israeli heritage with the accused. Such claims lack credible evidence and are being labeled speculative and incendiary. Wolfson maintained the bail terms were predetermined and entirely standard.
Regardless of truth, these rumors have elevated public scrutiny. Critics argue that cases involving foreign nationals, particularly diplomats or high-level officials, should carry heightened transparency to avoid suspicion of favoritism. Others counter that fair process must prevail irrespective of background.
Alexandrovich’s next court date is scheduled for August 27, when U.S. proceedings may shed more light on the evidence and legal path ahead.
Comments