Israeli Judge Resigns in Wake of Complaint Alleging Fake Dating Profile and Contact with Minors

By Grok News Desk September 23, 2025

In a stunning development that has rocked Israel’s judicial system, Judge Tomer Orinov of the Beersheba Magistrate’s Court has resigned from the bench, reportedly to preempt a formal investigation into allegations of serious ethical and potentially criminal misconduct. The resignation, announced on August 31, 2025, came just days after a detailed complaint was filed against him by U.S.-based activist and former Israeli journalist Avi Dubitzky, accusing the judge of creating a deceptive online profile on a dating site that appeared to target minors.

Dubitzky, who describes himself as a blogger and journalist protected under the U.S. First Amendment, has long campaigned against child sexual exploitation. Before emigrating to the United States, he contributed investigative pieces to Ynet and Channel 10 news without compensation. His activism includes posing as minors on social media alongside volunteers to expose adults attempting to solicit children online—a tactic he continued after relocating. Dubitzky’s efforts have previously led to police involvement, including a complaint filed at the Israeli Embassy in Miami, Florida, though he claims follow-up inquiries yielded little clarity on outcomes.

The Allegations: A “Sex Teacher” Profile and Questionable Interactions

The complaint, dated December 17, 2024, and submitted to Israel’s Judicial Complaints Commission (headed by Judge Asher Kola), paints a disturbing picture of Orinov’s alleged online behavior. According to Dubitzky, the 49-year-old judge (born in 1975) created a profile on the Israeli dating site mybf.co.il under the pseudonym “The Sex Teacher”. Despite claiming to be 38 years old—over a decade younger than his actual age—the profile reportedly sought connections with “young people”

“When informed that the conversation was with a minor, the judge allegedly warned that he could not meet anyone under 18 and was only interested in those 18 and older,” Dubitzky wrote in the complaint. However, he alleged that Orinov then shared his personal WhatsApp number—050-625-5012, provided by the court for professional use—for private chats, blurring the lines between his judicial role and personal pursuits.

Dubitzky’s filing also referenced a prior incident from 2019, where Orinov presided over a hearing involving a sex crime victim. An appeal later criticized the judge for permitting a “humiliating” cross-examination, highlighting a lack of sensitivity toward victims of sexual offenses. This history, Dubitzky argued, compounded concerns about Orinov’s fitness for the bench, raising “grave fears for public trust in the judiciary and judicial ethics.”

Dubitzky offered to provide supporting materials, including chat logs and screenshots, if the commission deemed the claims warrant investigation. He demanded an immediate probe, potential disciplinary action, and updates on the process, emphasizing the need to safeguard the integrity of Israel’s courts.

Escalation: Attempts to Suppress the Complaint

The saga took an even darker turn in July 2025, when Dubitzky filed a supplemental complaint. He accused Orinov of personally contacting him by phone after learning of the initial filing, repeatedly urging him to withdraw it. “The judge called me multiple times, informing me he knew about the complaint and trying to convince me to cancel it,” Dubitzky stated. He portrayed these interactions as not only ethically bankrupt but potentially criminal, citing violations of Israel’s Penal Law Sections 244 (obstruction of justice) and 245 (witness tampering). As a public servant, Orinov’s alleged exploitation of his position to influence a quasi-judicial process exemplified a “clear conflict of interest” and breached judicial ethics codes, which prohibit judges from engaging in matters where they have personal stakes.

Dubitzky urged the commission to treat the matter with urgency, arguing that such conduct eroded the foundational impartiality expected of judges.

Resignation: A Preemptive Exit?

Orinov’s resignation letter, delivered to Commission head Judge Kola, cited personal responsibility but notably occurred before any formal findings could be issued. Anti-exploitation advocacy groups, such as “Netzfu Al Ham” (Caught Red-Handed), hailed the move as an admission of guilt, posting recordings of alleged incriminating conversations and framing the exit as a bid to evade deeper scrutiny. One viral post described it bluntly: “The judge resigned, took responsibility, and ‘retired’ before the judges’ commission could have its say.”

Journalist Omri Maniv broke the story on X, noting the timing aligned closely with the complaints. Public reaction has been swift and polarized, with social media ablaze over questions of accountability. Critics argue the resignation shields Orinov from sanctions that could bar future legal practice, while supporters of judicial reform see it as a rare instance of self-policing.

Orinov, who graduated from Reali School in Haifa and served in the IDF before earning a law degree from Hebrew University, had been a magistrate in Beersheba since 2013. His departure leaves a vacancy in a court already strained by caseloads, particularly in sensitive family and criminal matters.

Broader Context: Dubitzky’s Crusade Against Predators

Dubitzky’s complaints are part of a larger pattern in his work. In a separate filing related to a court decision on virtual testimony requests, he detailed high-profile cases of alleged child solicitors—teachers, event planners, and military officers—who he claims misled courts while confessing to police. Names like Hanokh Tzvi Smith, Or Ben Tzvi, and others were cited to argue against partial publication of rulings, insisting full context (including police admissions) is essential for transparency. These cases underscore Dubitzky’s role in unmasking networks of exploitation, often involving educators with access to vulnerable youth.

The Judicial Complaints Commission has not publicly commented on the Orinov matter, but sources indicate it may still pursue a review post-resignation to assess broader implications for judicial oversight. As Dubitzky told advocates, “The fight for child safety doesn’t end with one resignation—it’s about rebuilding trust in the systems meant to protect us.”

This story highlights the perils of unchecked online anonymity and the unique pressures on those in positions of public trust. As investigations potentially continue, it serves as a stark reminder that no robe is immune to scrutiny.