How a Local Dispute Became a National Criminal Case, and Why New York Is at the Center
The federal criminal case now pending against Miami-based real estate brokers Oren Alexander, Alon Alexander, and Tal Alexander did not begin with an arrest, a police report, or a criminal investigation.
It began years later in Florida, through civil lawsuits, informal communications, and referrals that ultimately culminated in federal charges under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). Today, however, the case is being prosecuted in New York, placing it squarely within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), one of the most influential federal prosecutorial offices in the country.
That shift, from Florida civil claims to a New York federal courtroom, is central to understanding both how the case evolved and why it matters to New Yorkers.
The encounters at issue are alleged to have occurred more than a decade ago, and some even 16 years ago, and beyond, in Florida, during social interactions among adults in nightlife and residential settings.
At the time, there were no police reports, no medical examinations, no toxicology testing, and no contemporaneous complaints to law enforcement.
For years, no criminal case existed.
The allegations emerged later through civil lawsuits seeking monetary damages, not through law enforcement action. These claims arose amid expanded civil-liability windows and increased plaintiff-side outreach that encouraged individuals to reassess past experiences through a litigation framework.
Attorney Advertising and Claim Aggregation
A central figure in the Florida phase was plaintiff-side attorney Evan Torgan, who ultimately assembled a group of accusers whose allegations dated back many years. Court filings and deposition testimony indicate that Torgan’s involvement followed advertising and outreach inviting potential claimants to come forward. Over time, multiple women, many recalling events from a decade or more earlier, became represented by the same counsel.
Those civil claims formed the foundation of the later criminal referral, though jurors are not being told that the witnesses share common legal representation.
The Alexander’s Florida attorneys Joel Denaro and Edward O’Donnell, said:
New York’s Adult Survivors Act created a temporary window allowing sexual assault accusers to file monetary claims regardless of when the alleged assault occurred, incentivized suspicious advertising campaigns run by New York PI attorneys targeting the Alexanders. That portal funneled accusers to those attorneys, who hustled the claims to the FBI.
Quantity is what social media advertising produces. Flash crowds, conspiracy theories, political propaganda, and get rich quick schemes are all built the same way, volume without evidence. It is mathematically, scientifically, and forensically impossible to have no evidence of injury, non consent, and no contemporaneous report to law enforcement.
Add the massive monetary demands, and the motive becomes obvious. That is powerful evidence of the Alexanders’ innocence. Not one shred of evidence exists other than pointing to the next girl, represented by the same attorney, and saying, “See, she said it too.”
A Competitor’s Informal Outreach to Prosecutors
A separate Florida thread involves Cynthia Golub, a competitor of the Alexander brothers who played a role in relaying concerns to prosecutors.
Court filings show that Golub contacted her sister, Suzanne Von Paulus, a longtime Miami-Dade prosecutor, raising allegations about the Alexanders. Rather than presenting a formal criminal complaint supported by contemporaneous evidence, Golub framed the allegations within a broader political and reputational narrative.
In her emails, Golub invoked comparisons to then-President Donald Trump and referenced media coverage of the Alexanders’ real-estate dealings with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. In one message, she described the situation as “birds of a feather,” suggesting that proximity to Trump reflected a larger culture of sexual misconduct and impunity.
The correspondence emphasized optics and influence rather than police reports, medical records, or sworn complaints. Its significance lies in illustrating how the allegations were initially framed and conveyed to prosecutorial offices, through informal communication rather than traditional law-enforcement channels.
A Key Florida Accuser and Contemporaneous Records
One of the earliest and most prominent Florida accusers is also the wife of a former U.S. congressman.
Text messages between this accuser and Oren Alexander, later produced in discovery and discussed in sworn deposition testimony, provide a contemporaneous record of how she described the encounter at the time, years before any civil claim or criminal referral.
In her deposition, the accuser described the aftermath in differing ways: spending the night crying, staying home watching television, and later going out socially in Miami, including to LIV nightclub and other venues.
She also acknowledged under oath that she continued communicating with Alexander after the encounter and sent photographs and messages that were sexual or suggestive in nature following the alleged incident. She testified that those messages did not accuse Alexander of wrongdoing and did not reference fear, force, or incapacitation.
The accuser further clarified that when she later said she felt “drugged,” she did not mean that any substance had been administered. Rather, she suggested that the term reflected confusion and regret afterward.
Defense attorneys argue that these contemporaneous communications and behaviors differ materially from allegations advanced years later in civil litigation and the federal indictment. Prosecutors counter that trauma can manifest inconsistently. That dispute sits at the heart of the case.
Limited Political Background
The former congressman himself, is at issue too. In his sworn deposition he describes a situation in which he felt shocked, embarrassed and even possibly blindsided by his wife’s past interaction with Oren Alexander. This is where his own public profile added visibility to the allegations. As background, he had a brief interaction with the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office in 2003, when, while a college freshman, he was arrested on misdemeanor charges that were later dismissed.
His father was acquainted with the Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle, and modest political donations were made around that period. Subsequent reporting found no evidence that those donations influenced the dismissal of the charges. Still, his testimony revealed that the former Congressman did reach out to law enforcement and other public officials with whom he had professional connections to promote criminal claims against Alexander.
Why the Case Moved to New York
As civil claims accumulated, materials were referred to federal authorities, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Because the Alexanders have business ties to New York real estate and some of the allegations made occurred in New York, Federal prosecutors advanced a theory under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
Crucially, that theory is now being tested in New York.
The Southern District of New York, based in Manhattan, is widely regarded as the federal government’s most powerful prosecutorial office. Cases brought there often shape national interpretations of federal law. When SDNY adopts an expansive reading of a statute, the effects are felt far beyond New York City.
In this case, SDNY prosecutors are applying the TVPA, a law originally designed to combat forced labor and human trafficking, to years-old allegations involving adult social encounters that occurred outside New York. Legal observers note that if such an application is upheld, it could broaden federal jurisdiction and redefine how and where civil allegations may later be pursued as criminal cases.
For New York residents, including those in Western New York, the implications are concrete. SDNY’s approach here may influence how federal prosecutors interpret coercion, jurisdiction, and timing in future cases, potentially affecting individuals and businesses far removed from the original conduct.
The Alexander brothers deny all allegations
Shortly before Christmas 2025, defense attorney Marc Agnifilo summarized the defense position in court:
“If you want to know what the heart of our defense is in this case, it’s this: they didn’t drug anybody, not one time, not ever, and there’s not going to be compelling evidence that they ever did.”
The brothers’ parents, Shlomi Alexander and Orly Alexander, issued a statement emphasizing the toll of the proceedings:
“We have been living with this ordeal since allegations first surfaced in civil lawsuits and were widely amplified long before any criminal charges were brought. The impact on our family has been profound and deeply painful.
We believe our sons are innocent, and that if they are judged on the evidence presented at trial, free from speculation or public narrative, the truth will prevail. We ask only for a fair process, grounded in facts, where their voices can finally be heard.”
Why Florida Still Matters, and Why New York Now Does
Although the case is now federal and being prosecuted in New York, Florida remains central. The alleged encounters occurred there. The civil claims originated there. Early communications with prosecutors took place there, and the Alexanders are set to face criminal charges in Florida after the Federal trial ends, but New York is where the legal theory is being tested, and where precedent may be set.
For New Yorkers, the case raises broader questions about how far federal statutes can reach, how civil disputes can migrate into criminal courtrooms, and how decisions made by SDNY can shape the contours of federal criminal law nationwide.
An Unresolved Question
These details do not determine guilt or innocence. That decision belongs to a jury.
But the path from Florida civil litigation to a New York federal trafficking indictment underscores how informal outreach, civil-litigation incentives, and expansive federal statutes can intersect, and how private disputes can escalate into national criminal cases with local consequences.
As the proceedings continue, the outcome will turn not on narrative or volume, but on evidence, and whether the government can meet the burden required in a criminal court.
