Private Investigator Sues Billionaire Over 'Scamming' Hostage Survivor's Family

Private investigator Zvika Naveh has filed two lawsuits against Israeli-Australian businessman Alex Sklar, seeking millions in damages over a defamation campaign. In the first lawsuit, filed in Tel Aviv, Naveh is suing Sklar, along with transportation companies Egged and Metropolin, for allegedly allowing advertisements on buses to falsely accuse him and former Shin Bet chief Yaakov Peri of involvement in child abduction. Naveh denies any connection to the abduction of the Block family's children in Germany, stating he was never investigated or charged.

The advertisements, which appeared on at least 60 buses across 40 routes, allegedly aimed to create the impression that Naveh's denials were not credible. Naveh claims the bus companies breached their duty of care by not reasonably vetting the advertisement's content. He is seeking 12.16 million shekels for libel and invasion of privacy, plus reimbursement of the advertising fees, though the claim for court fees is set at 2 million shekels.

The second lawsuit targets Sklar directly, alleging Naveh was falsely portrayed as having defrauded the family of hostage Liri Elbag. Naveh claims Elbag's father, Eli Elbag, approached him for help obtaining a foreign passport for his daughter, paying Naveh one million shekels plus VAT. Naveh asserts he returned the full amount when the passport could not be secured.

Despite this, Naveh alleges Sklar disseminated claims that he "scammed" the family and fraudulently took their money. Naveh cites an interview where Sklar allegedly called him a "swindler" and claimed he took two million shekels from the Elbag family. The lawsuit includes statements from Eli Elbag, who reportedly told media outlets that Naveh tried to help, did not succeed, and returned the money, stating he had no complaint against Naveh and that he initiated contact.

In this second suit, Naveh is demanding one million shekels, along with the removal of the defamatory publications and an injunction against their continued distribution. None of the defendants have yet filed their responses with the court.