The legal and public dispute between private investigator Zvika Neve and Israeli-Australian businessman Alex Sklar is escalating and reaching the court. According to recent reports, Neve has filed two separate lawsuits for defamation and violation of privacy, following a protracted campaign conducted by Sklar against him. One lawsuit, for 2 million shekels, was filed against Sklar as well as transportation companies Egged and Metropoline. The claim concerns advertisements displayed on dozens of buses across the country, which alleged that Neve and former Shin Bet chief Yaakov Peri were involved in child abductions. Neve argues in his filing that these are false statements, asserting he never had any connection to the alleged case in Germany and was never investigated or charged regarding it. In this context, Neve claims the transportation companies approved the advertisements without properly verifying the claims they contained.
Simultaneously, Neve filed a second lawsuit for 1 million shekels against Sklar alone. This suit focuses on publications claiming that Neve exploited the distress of hostage survivor Liri Albag's family, allegedly 'swindling' them during attempts to obtain a foreign passport. In the statement of claim, Neve notes that he was approached by Liri’s father, Eli Albag, to assist in obtaining a passport, and that the funds paid to him were fully returned after the process proved unsuccessful. Neve adds that Eli Albag has clarified in various interviews that he has no grievances against him and that the money was returned.
Conversely, Alex Sklar stands behind the publications. In previous media interviews, Sklar claimed he is managing a campaign against Neve and offering a monetary reward to anyone providing incriminating evidence against him, insisting that the publications are true and that he possesses further complaints regarding the private investigator's conduct. It should be noted that as of now, the statements of defense have not yet been filed, and the claims raised in the lawsuits have not been adjudicated. The case reflects the complexity of managing legal battles alongside resource-intensive media and public campaigns, where the boundaries of free speech and liability for publication are at the heart of the controversy. In addition to financial damages, Neve is demanding an injunction ordering the removal of the publications and preventing their further distribution. This is a legal dispute currently in its early stages, and all details remain subject to future judicial ruling.