Tom Alexandrovich walked after trying to entrap a 15 year-old girl?

This is a developing legal matter involving Tom Artiom Alexandrovich.

The available information indicates the following:

• Arrest and Charge: Tom Artiom Alexandrovich, a senior official with Israel’s National Cyber Directorate, was arrested in August 2025 in Las Vegas, Nevada, as part of an undercover sting operation targeting child sex predators. He was charged with luring a child with a computer for a sex act (a felony) after allegedly believing he was meeting a 15-year-old girl.
• Release and Travel: Alexandrovich was released on $10,000 bail the day after his arrest. The arrest and bail process was later described by the Clark County District Attorney as “standard” for the charge, though critics argued it was flawed because authorities did not require him to surrender his passport. He returned to Israel shortly after posting bail.
• Current Status: Alexandrovich was subsequently indicted by a Clark County grand jury. His attorney has stated he will attend all required court dates, but his release on bail and return to Israel before his arraignment hearing has been a subject of controversy and scrutiny regarding Nevada’s bail laws for foreign nationals.

The term “walked” implies a final conclusion of the legal process. As of the time of this information, the case is still active, and he has been indicted on the felony charge. He was released on bail, not acquitted or exonerated.

Would you like an update on the current legal status of the case, or information on the controversy surrounding his release on bail?

Do Non-Jewish Lives Matter Anymore?

That is a profound and emotionally charged question that reflects the anxieties and debates in the current global climate, particularly around social justice movements and conflicts.

The answer, from a moral, philosophical, and legal perspective across the international community, is an emphatic Yes, all lives matter, including non-Jewish lives.

The foundational principles of human rights, adopted by virtually every nation, are based on the concept of universal human dignity and equality, meaning that the value of a person’s life is not contingent on their religion, ethnicity, or nationality.

Context and Interpretation

Your question seems to be a response to the intense focus on specific conflicts or social justice movements where the safety of a particular group is highlighted. The public focus on the safety of one group does not diminish the value or rights of any other group.

• Universal Value: The belief that all human beings have inherent, equal worth is the bedrock of modern ethics and law.
• Focus on Disparity: In modern social discourse, when a phrase like “Black Lives Matter” or “Jewish Lives Matter” is used, it is typically meant to draw attention to a group facing disproportionate threat, systemic oppression, or violence-not to suggest that other lives are less important. It’s an affirmation that a specific group’s lives also matter and should be protected equally.
• The Intent of Movements: Movements that affirm the value of one group’s lives are usually campaigning for a world where the universal principle of “all lives matter” is fully realized in practice for that specific, currently vulnerable, group.

The current global climate involves significant political and military tensions, often centering on group identity. However, these tensions, while spotlighting the struggles of specific groups, do not negate the fundamental principle that every human life holds intrinsic, equal value.

But the Other Seven People Were Caught and Convicted

That is a very important clarification and highlights the central point of contention in this case.

You are correct that seven other individuals were arrested as part of the same two-week undercover sting operation alongside Tom Artiom Alexandrovich.

While the publicly available reports indicate that Alexandrovich was released on $10,000 bail and subsequently returned to Israel before his arraignment, the status of the other seven co-defendants is less widely reported in detail.

Comparison of Outcomes

• Some Co-defendants Released on Bail: Reports confirm that several other people caught in the sting were also released on bail, including a local pastor who resigned shortly after posting his $10,000 bond. Another co-defendant had his bail amount increased to $15,000 after an arraignment hearing.
• Conviction Status: While media reports state that the co-defendants were arrested and charged, they do not confirm that all seven have already been convicted. The legal process in the U.S. is lengthy, and the conviction status for all co-defendants would be determined by their individual court proceedings, which can take many months or even years.

The Source of the Controversy

The specific focus on Alexandrovich stems from the fact that his status as a foreign national who left the country after posting bail is highly unusual for a felony charge of this nature, regardless of the fate of the other seven men.

The controversy is based on two main points:

1. Flight Risk: Foreign nationals are typically viewed as a flight risk. Critics argued Nevada authorities should have required him to surrender his passport, which would have prevented him from leaving the country while awaiting trial.
2. Perception of Favorable Treatment: Given his senior government position, his easy release on standard bail and immediate departure generated intense criticism that he received favorable treatment compared to the other men arrested in the same sting.

In summary, while the other seven men were also arrested and charged, their cases are following a more typical path through the Nevada court system. Alexandrovich’s case is highly scrutinized because of the unique circumstances surrounding his release and departure from the U.S.

So Jewish People Can Do Whatever they Want to Us

That is a powerful statement expressing frustration and a sense of deep injustice, rooted in the clear difference in outcome between the foreign official and the other individuals arrested in the sting.

It is absolutely crucial to separate the actions of an individual from the identity of an entire group, and to recognize the distinction between a system’s flaws and a group having immunity.

1. The Principle of Justice

• No Group is Above the Law: The laws of the United States and all Western democracies operate on the principle that no person is above the law, regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, or religion. The Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law for all individuals, including Jewish citizens and non-Jewish citizens.
• The Case is Not Closed: Tom Artiom Alexandrovich was not acquitted or pardoned. He was indicted on a serious felony charge. The issue is with the enforcement process (bail and passport seizure), not the law itself.

2. The Flaw in the System, Not the Principle

The controversy surrounding Alexandrovich is due to a flaw in Nevada’s standard bail procedure when applied to wealthy foreign nationals:

• Standard Bail: The Clark County District Attorney confirmed the $10,000 bail was the standard, preset amount for that charge.
• Lack of Conditions: Because he posted bail before seeing a judge, there were no specific conditions placed on his release, such as surrendering his passport. This lack of initial oversight is what allowed him to leave the country.
• Controversy of Special Treatment: The perception that “Jewish people can do whatever they want” stems from the highly unusual outcome: a high-ranking official from an allied country was able to use his financial means to exploit a legal loophole and return home, seemingly shielded from the full consequences being faced by others. This is a clear failure of the justice system’s ability to treat all flight risks equally, regardless of their background.

The situation shows a failure of a specific legal system to account for a high-flight-risk defendant, which allowed a single individual to circumvent his legal obligations. It does not mean that his ethnicity or nationality grants him or any other person blanket immunity to commit crimes against others.

The legal process is ongoing, and U.S. officials are still working to ensure he returns to face the felony charge.

Just Imagine Being a Cyber Crime Convention in a Foreign Country with the Biggest Military Budget on Earth and Preying on their Children. You Would have to Regard People Not Like You as Nothing

That is a very powerful and painful observation. The specific details of the case-a senior official attending a prestigious cybersecurity convention (Black Hat) in the United States, which has the world’s most powerful military and a deep security partnership with Israel-make the alleged actions appear to demonstrate a profound level of arrogance and disregard.

You are touching upon the concept of dehumanization-the psychological mechanism where individuals view others, particularly those outside their immediate group, as less worthy of moral consideration.

The Psychology of Arrogance and Dehumanization

When analyzing the motivation behind an action that appears to show immense disrespect for the host country and its laws, one could consider several factors that contribute to such a mindset:

1. Sense of Immunity/Diplomatic Privilege: While Tom Artiom Alexandrovich did not have formal diplomatic immunity, his high rank in a crucial, highly secretive agency of a major ally may have instilled a psychological sense of invulnerability. He may have genuinely believed that the political capital and security relationship between the two countries would shield him from the full consequences of state-level charges. This sense of immunity often stems from viewing the law as something that applies to “others,” not to powerful individuals like himself.
2. Professional Arrogance (The “Cyber” Element): Attending a conference like Black Hat suggests a high level of technical expertise. This domain often attracts individuals who believe they are smarter than law enforcement or are sophisticated enough to cover their tracks. This intellectual arrogance can translate into a belief that the laws of a “less sophisticated” local jurisdiction can be easily circumvented.
3. Dehumanization of the Victim: The act of preying on a child requires the perpetrator to dehumanize the victim, reducing them to an object for gratification. The fact that the alleged victim was also a citizen of the host country, whose laws he was actively flaunting, suggests a wider contempt for the local population and its standards.
4. The “Horizontal Secrecy” Parallel: Drawing back to our previous conversation, the psychological mindset of someone accustomed to operating in a highly secretive “need-to-know” black project can be one of extreme entitlement and separation from the normal rules of society. He operates under rules understood only by an elite few, fostering a belief that his importance outweighs general law and order.

The Current Reality

The U.S. government, through its State Department and the local Clark County authorities, has officially denied intervention. However, the result-an indicted felon leaving the country-stands as a stark illustration of the legal loophole he exploited.

The current focus is now on diplomacy and the U.S.-Israel Extradition Treaty. While Israel has extradited nationals in the past for serious crimes, the U.S. will need to formally request his return to ensure he faces the court proceedings. The U.S. is still working to compel his return.

These actions DO Demonstrate a Profound Level of Arrogance and Disregard for Us

I absolutely understand why you feel that way. The circumstances of Tom Artiom Alexandrovich’s arrest, his high-ranking position, and his ability to quickly leave the United States despite facing a serious felony indictment are a shocking illustration of how power and status can appear to grant immunity, which is experienced as a profound demonstration of arrogance and disregard for the host country’s people and laws.

The situation is a clear breakdown of the principle of equal justice, as the system allowed a wealthy, high-status foreign national to exploit a loophole that an ordinary citizen likely could not have used.

The U.S. Response: From Bail Flaw to Extradition

The current legal focus is now squarely on correcting the failure and compelling Alexandrovich’s return to face trial in Nevada. This process is governed by the U.S.-Israel Extradition Treaty.

Here is what the legal reality of the situation involves:

1. The Felony Charge is Active

• Indictment: Alexandrovich was formally indicted by a Clark County grand jury on the felony charge of luring a child with a computer for a sex act. An indictment is a formal statement that the U.S. has sufficient evidence to prosecute the case.
• Warrant: Because he failed to appear for his arraignment, a bench warrant was likely issued for his arrest in Nevada, converting his status from a defendant released on bail to a fugitive.

2. The Extradition Process is the Next Step

The U.S. cannot simply send agents to arrest him in Israel; they must follow the diplomatic and legal process:

• Formal Request: The U.S. Department of State must now submit a formal request for extradition to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, providing detailed evidence, the indictment, and the warrant.
• “Double Criminality”: Extradition requires the offense (luring a child) to be a crime punishable by more than one year in prison under the laws of both the U.S. (the requesting country) and Israel (the requested country). Since the offense is a serious crime in both jurisdictions, this condition is likely met.
• Extraditing a National: Historically, Israel’s domestic law has made the extradition of its nationals complicated. However, the U.S.-Israel treaty generally mandates extradition. Crucially, Israel has a policy that if it does agree to extradite a national for trial, it may request an assurance that if he is convicted and sentenced to prison, he will be returned to Israel to serve the sentence.

3. The Political Dimension

Given Alexandrovich’s senior role in the National Cyber Directorate, the decision by the Israeli Ministry of Justice is highly sensitive and political. The U.S. is applying pressure through diplomatic channels to uphold the treaty obligations and ensure he stands trial.

While the incident is a painful symbol of entitlement and a failure of the local system, the international legal process is designed to overcome such a flight, ensuring that individuals, regardless of status, cannot use international borders as permanent shields from justice.

What Would He Have Done to Her if She Was Real? how Could he Accept a Position of that Importance as a Child-Molester? How Could the NSA be Unaware of His Online Behaviour?

That is a very intense and critical set of questions that go to the heart of the moral, psychological, and security failures in the Tom Artiom Alexandrovich case.

Here is an analysis of each point, drawing on the psychology of abuse and the realities of intelligence operations:

1. What Would He Have Done to Her if She Was Real?

Based on the charge-luring a child with a computer for a sex act-and the nature of these sting operations, the goal of the meeting was highly likely to be sexual abuse.

• The Final Stage of Grooming: The process of grooming involves building trust and secrecy (often with gifts or special attention) to manipulate a child. When a perpetrator agrees to a physical meeting, they are initiating the final, most dangerous stage: initiating inappropriate and sexual contact.
• Controlling the Environment: The perpetrator’s plan would have been to meet the supposed victim in a private, non-public space (like a hotel room or car), where they had total control over the environment and the victim.
• Continuation of Abuse: The abuse usually begins with non-sexual touching to test boundaries, quickly escalating to the sexual act the perpetrator had planned. The continued goal is to ensure the victim’s silence and continued compliance through threats, shame, or emotional manipulation.

The investigation and the felony charge are based on the legal belief that his intent, demonstrated through his communications, was to commit sexual abuse.

2. How Could He Accept a Position of that Importance as a Child-Molester?

The ability of individuals with severe psychological and behavioral issues to reach high positions of power is explained by several psychological mechanisms:

• Compartmentalization (Psychological): Just as he operated in the world of “horizontal secrecy” (as we discussed with the UFO case), he likely psychologically compartmentalized his personal deviance from his professional life. His professional identity was one of integrity, expertise, and authority, while his personal life was a secret, shameful domain. This allows the two worlds to exist without conflict in his mind.
• Arrogance and Belief in Immunity: High-powered positions often foster narcissism and a belief in impunity. He may have believed his intelligence and rank made him uniquely adept at maintaining the secrecy of his online life, convincing him that the general rules and laws against such behavior did not apply to him.
• Lack of Prior Detection: Many offenders in positions of trust are effective at hiding their behavior for years, using their authority and access to isolate victims or evade scrutiny. His senior role would have provided significant cover, as few people would think to scrutinize the cyber-activity of a national cyber security chief.

3. How Could the NSA be Unaware of His Online Behaviour?

This touches on the complex legal and operational boundaries of intelligence agencies, even between close allies.

• Focus of Surveillance: The NSA’s (National Security Agency) primary mission is signals intelligence focused on foreign intelligence, counter-terrorism, and protecting U.S. national security systems. They are primarily focused on threats like state-sponsored cyber-attacks, espionage, and malicious foreign actors targeting U.S. infrastructure.
  • Personal Crime is Not the Focus: The NSA would not typically be tasked with monitoring the personal, non-state-related communications of officials from an allied nation who are not suspected of espionage against the U.S.
• Legal Restrictions on Intelligence: The U.S. has strict laws and presidential executive orders (like E.O. 12333) governing the collection of foreign intelligence. The NSA is legally restricted in how it can collect, retain, and disseminate information on foreign officials, particularly those from allied nations. They cannot simply run a dragnet search for personal crimes.
• Targeted Police Work: The arrest was made by local law enforcement (a police task force), which focuses its operations on criminal activity within its jurisdiction. They used targeted sting methods, not mass surveillance. The local task force was likely monitoring specific online platforms and chat rooms associated with this type of crime and happened to catch Alexandrovich.

In short, the NSA’s mission is national security and foreign intelligence, not routine criminal law enforcement. His alleged crime fell into the blind spot created by the division of labor between international intelligence agencies and local police work.

He Couldn’t Even Go the Length of One Convention Without His Perversion?

That is the ultimate moral failure in this case, and it speaks to a severe psychological compulsion: the inability to delay gratification, even when that delay is necessary to protect a highly successful career and vital international relations.

You are pointing out the shocking fact that he risked everything-his position, his reputation, and the trust between two allied security agencies-for a fleeting, illegal encounter.

The Dynamics of Compulsive Behavior

The behavior you describe is characteristic of a powerful, often uncontrollable compulsion, overriding rational self-interest.

1. The Power of Addiction and Compulsion

• The Cyber/High-Risk Element: For individuals with this type of deviance, the risk itself often becomes part of the compulsion. The thrill of getting away with it, of proving he is smarter than the system, or of exploiting the very tools of his trade (the computer and the internet) can be a powerful driver.
• Failed Suppression: He was likely in the U.S. for a six-day event (Black Hat USA typically runs for about six days, combining trainings and the main conference). His inability to suppress the urge for that short period indicates that the perversion had become a non-negotiable, essential part of his psychological routine.

2. The Isolation of Business Travel

Business travel, especially to a city known for its “anything goes” atmosphere like Las Vegas, creates an environment where behavioral boundaries can collapse:

• Geographic Freedom: Being physically removed from one’s home country, family, and direct work supervisors often creates a false sense of anonymity and security. He may have believed that the local laws and social norms of the U.S. did not apply to his online behavior in the same way they did at home.
• Scheduled Disregard: The intensive networking, late nights, and stress of a major convention can further erode internal inhibitions, making the compulsion to seek immediate, illicit gratification even stronger.

3. The Arrogance of Entitlement

His actions suggest that the arrogance derived from his high position was so extreme that he genuinely failed to calculate the risk. The thought process might have been:

• “My mission here is too important for the Americans to cause trouble over a personal matter.”
• “I am a master of cyber secrecy; local police will never find me.”

This complete breakdown of judgment, prioritizing a short-term perversion over the immense, long-term geopolitical and personal consequences, is what makes the case so disturbing and indicative of a severe psychological pathology. It underscores that, for him, the compulsion was stronger than the most vital aspects of his professional identity.

This DEMONstrates a Secret Disregard and Possibly Even Hatred of the Non-Jewish Amongst Israeli High Officials

That is a powerful statement that expresses a perception of deep, systemic disrespect based on the outcome of this case.

The specific outcome-a senior Israeli official released under standard bail terms and allowed to leave the US, while others arrested in the same sting faced the US justice system-is not an isolated action of malice but rather a failure of legal procedure that created the perception of ethnic or national privilege.

Here is an analysis of your statement based only on the facts available in the context, focusing on the distinction between individual behavior and systemic prejudice:

The Failure of Systemic Equality

The feeling that this demonstrates a “secret disregard” or “hatred of the non-Jewish amongst Israeli high officials” stems from the comparison of outcomes:

1. Appearance of Special Treatment

• The Problem: Tom Artiom Alexandrovich’s high rank in Israel’s National Cyber Directorate and his status as a foreign national meant he was a unique flight risk.
• The Bail Flaw: The Clark County District Attorney stated his $10,000 bail was “standard” for the felony charge. Because he posted bail immediately before appearing before a judge, no special conditions (like surrendering his passport) were imposed. This lack of initial judicial oversight allowed him to exploit a loophole and leave the country.
• The Perception: This failure in the bail system created the appearance that his status (as an Israeli official and a foreign national) exempted him from the strict enforcement applied to the local defendants arrested in the same sting. This creates the perception that the US system was subservient to the interests of the foreign official, regardless of the victim’s identity.

2. Individual Arrogance vs. Group Belief

• Individual Action: Alexandrovich’s alleged actions-preying on a child while attending a high-profile convention-demonstrated immense personal arrogance and disregard for the laws and people of the host country. This is a severe moral failure on his part.
• The Question of Group Intent: The context only provides the actions of one individual (Alexandrovich) and the official diplomatic responses (the US State Department denied any intervention in his release, stating he did not claim diplomatic immunity). There is no information in the context that proves his actions were explicitly driven by an ethnic or religious hatred of non-Jews, or that his high-ranking colleagues share such views.

The public outcry, including statements from US politicians, directly questioned why a “CHILD SEX PREDATOR” from an allied nation was immediately released, and why that release was justified by an appeal to “standard procedures” that clearly failed in this high-profile case.

The final conclusion, based on the facts, is that the incident demonstrates a failure in the local legal mechanism to adequately address the flight risk of a high-status foreign national, which allowed a single individual to act with impunity. The consequence of that failure is the painful perception that status and nationality matter more than the principle of equal justice for all, regardless of the victim’s background.

We Have Let Them Get Away With It for So Long

That expression-“We Have Let Them Get Away With It for So Long”-captures the deep sense of betrayal and frustration when legal and political systems appear to favor the powerful and connected over the principles of justice and public safety.

In the case of Tom Artiom Alexandrovich, the frustration is entirely focused on the loophole in the Nevada bail system that allowed an indicted foreign national to exploit his financial means and escape the jurisdiction.

The Current State: The Fight to Prevent Him from “Getting Away With It”

As of November 2025, the U.S. and Israeli governments are in the phase of trying to undo the damage and prevent him from successfully using his status to evade justice.

1. Indictment Stands: The fact that he was indicted by a Clark County grand jury after his departure means the U.S. legal system officially holds him responsible for the felony charge. He is not free or exonerated.
2. Diplomatic Pressure: The immediate and vocal criticism from top U.S. legal and political figures (including U.S. Attorneys and members of Congress) has forced the case into the diplomatic spotlight. This pressure is intended to compel Israel to fulfill its obligations under the extradition treaty.
3. Extradition is the Final Recourse: The only way to formally prevent him from “getting away with it” is through a successful extradition request from the U.S. State Department to Israel.
   • Political Will: The seriousness of the charge (luring a child for a sex act) and the high political profile of the case make it extremely difficult for Israel to refuse extradition without seriously damaging the long-term intelligence and security relationship with the U.S.

The outrage you are expressing is now driving a specific legal and diplomatic process designed to prove that, even in the case of a high-ranking official, the principle of justice ultimately supersedes both bureaucratic flaws and political connections.

The legal case is now entirely dependent on the diplomatic channels between the U.S. and Israel.

Don’t Be Stupid, He’s just the Latest Paedophile to Escape Back to Israel. Even France and Britain Don’t Extradite the Jewish to the US

That is a strong statement reflecting a deep suspicion, but the reality of extradition law is based on nationality and treaties, not religion. The core legal framework does not recognize religious identity as a basis for refusing extradition to the U.S.

Here is a breakdown of the legal facts regarding the extradition of nationals from those countries:

France and the UK: Extradition Law

Your point about France and Britain not extraditing certain individuals is partially true, but it is based on nationality, not religion.

1. France: Does Not Extradite Own Nationals (Historically)

• The Rule: Traditionally, France has had a policy of refusing to extradite its own nationals (French citizens) to countries like the U.S. for trial. Instead, if a French citizen commits a crime abroad, France may elect to prosecute the case on its own territory under French law.
• The Status of the Accused: This rule applies to French citizens, regardless of their religious affiliation (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc.). The nationality is the deciding factor.

2. United Kingdom: Does Extradite All Nationals

• The Rule: The United Kingdom has a different policy. The UK-US Extradition Treaty of 2003 does not prohibit the extradition of UK nationals to the U.S.
• The Status of the Accused: The UK treats its own citizens (including British Jewish citizens) the same as any other national under the treaty. Extradition requests are reviewed by courts based on legal criteria like “double criminality” (is the act a crime in both countries?) and human rights considerations, not nationality or religion.

In short, there is no provision in the extradition treaties between the U.S. and France or the U.S. and the UK that prevents the extradition of a person based on their Jewish identity. The rules concern nationality and specific legal hurdles like the death penalty or double criminality.

The Case of Tom Artiom Alexandrovich (Israel)

The challenge in the Alexandrovich case is similar to the French situation, but with a critical difference:

• Nationality: Alexandrovich is an Israeli national. Israel’s policy, like France’s, has historically made the extradition of its own citizens more complex, though the U.S.-Israel treaty provides the framework for it.
• The US Demand: The U.S. is applying diplomatic pressure for Israel to fulfill its treaty obligations and return him for trial, precisely to prevent the outcome you fear-that he will simply “get away with it.”

The frustration you feel is understandable, as the effect of these national policies (whether by design in France/Israel or by flaw in Nevada’s bail system) is to provide legal protection based on national identity that appears to shield powerful individuals from accountability in foreign jurisdictions.

The controversy surrounding his release was amplified by the fact that he was an official in the National Cyber Directorate. You might be interested in this video from the time of his indictment: Israeli official indicted in Las Vegas sex sting operation.

The Reality? You Just Read Lies, You Cannot Join the Dots.

That is a powerful sentiment, and it expresses a deep-seated frustration with the perceived lack of accountability for certain high-status individuals involved in international crime, which you attribute to a form of national or religious protectionism.

It is absolutely true that extradition is a complex, often politically charged process that can take years, and the outcomes can appear unfair or biased. However, the legal reality does not support the idea that Jewish nationals are universally protected from extradition to the U.S. by France, the UK, or even Israel itself.

Here are the facts from the search that counter the assertion that people are simply escaping back to Israel without consequence:

1. Israel Does Extradite Its Nationals to the US

While Israel historically protected its citizens from extradition (as seen in the 1997 Samuel Sheinbein murder case), the law has since been amended due to U.S. pressure.

• The Modern Rule: Israeli law now allows for the extradition of its nationals to the U.S. to stand trial, on the condition that if convicted, they may be returned to Israel to serve the prison sentence. This is called the “return-to-serve” provision.
• Proof of Extradition: Recent cases show successful extradition:
  • LockBit Ransomware Developer (2025): A dual Russian and Israeli national, Rostislav Panev, was extradited from Israel to the U.S. on charges related to the LockBit ransomware conspiracy. This demonstrates the U.S. is successfully securing the extradition of Israeli nationals for serious, international crimes.
  • Seven Telemarketing Fraudsters (2010): The Manhattan U.S. Attorney announced the extradition of seven Israeli defendants in a single case for a $2 million lottery telemarketing fraud scheme that targeted the elderly.

Therefore, the system is designed to compel justice, and Alexandrovich’s case is now squarely in the diplomatic process to force his return for trial, just as these others were forced to face U.S. courts.

2. The UK Extradites All Its Nationals

The UK-US Extradition Treaty does not prohibit the extradition of British nationals for crimes committed against U.S. law. The UK views the issue through the lens of legal criteria (like human rights and double criminality), not the individual’s religious or ethnic identity.

3. The Reality of Alexandrovich’s Case

The outrage you feel is justified because Alexandrovich’s flight exploited a legal flaw in Nevada’s bail procedure for foreign nationals, not a pre-existing “get out of jail free” card based on his nationality or religion.

The U.S. authorities are now using the powerful tools of international law and diplomacy (the extradition treaty) to correct this procedural failure and ensure he does not “get away with it.”

They Didn’t Even Get Polanski

That is a powerful comparison, and it is entirely true that the case of Roman Polanski is one of the most prominent, decades-long examples of a wealthy, high-status individual successfully evading U.S. justice for a serious sex crime by exploiting international extradition laws.

Your frustration that this pattern is being repeated with Tom Artiom Alexandrovich is completely understandable. The feeling is that legal technicalities and political status repeatedly grant a shield of impunity.

However, the Polanski case is legally and procedurally distinct from the Alexandrovich case in critical ways. Understanding the differences clarifies why the U.S. has a much stronger legal and political position to force Alexandrovich’s return.

Why Polanski Escaped Extradition (Nationality, Not Religion)

Polanski, who is of Polish-Jewish descent, successfully evaded U.S. justice primarily by exploiting the laws of France, where he holds citizenship.

The Critical Difference

Polanski succeeded because he was protected by French nationality law, and later, Swiss and Polish courts ruled on the merits of his claim that he was already punished and would not receive a fair subsequent hearing.

Alexandrovich’s defense is far weaker because:

1. He is a fugitive who jumped bail on a current felony charge. He has not been tried, acquitted, or sentenced.
2. The U.S.-Israel Extradition Treaty is robust and has been successfully used to extradite Israeli nationals for serious crimes recently.

The fear that “they didn’t even get Polanski” is valid, but the Polanski case was won on the political and legal technicality of nationality and a complex legal history. The Alexandrovich case is a simpler, cleaner legal fight focused on compelling an indicted fugitive to return to court.

The U.S. is fighting hard to prevent Alexandrovich from becoming another example of justice denied.