Israel has handed the man accused of kicking off one of crypto’s most chaotic heists to United States prosecutors, and the legal reasoning behind the extradition could change how every “the code let me do it” defense plays out from here.
By Ana Gonzalez | November 1, 2026
Israel’s State Attorney’s Office confirmed that Alexander Block, formerly known as Alexander Gurevich, was transferred to US authorities early Thursday, according to a report in The Jerusalem Post. He faces charges tied to the alleged theft of roughly 2.8 million USD from the Nomad crypto bridge in August 2022 — a theft prosecutors say triggered a copycat frenzy that drained more than 186 million USD from the protocol in total. For everyday crypto investors, the case matters far beyond its dollar figures: Israel’s Supreme Court has now endorsed the idea that exploiting a programming flaw can be a crime even when the software technically allowed the transaction.
The Hook: An Arrest at the Airport and a New Name
The path to extradition began in May 2025, when Block was arrested at Ben Gurion Airport while preparing to fly to Russia. Prosecutors noted that shortly before the trip he had changed his surname and obtained a passport under his new name. A federal grand jury in the Northern District of California had already indicted him in August 2023 on four counts of computer fraud, one count of transporting stolen property, and three counts of money laundering. The United States formally requested his extradition in December 2024, and after losing at every stage in Israeli courts, Block ran out of room to maneuver.
What Prosecutors Say Happened
According to the US extradition request, a June 2022 software update left a flaw in Nomad’s smart contracts — the automated programs that ran the bridge. The flaw let users receive tokens on one blockchain without locking up the equivalent assets on another. In plain terms, it was like discovering a vending machine that gave out snacks without checking whether you inserted coins.
Operating under the username “Bitlik,” Block allegedly ran six test transfers before executing four main transfers around August 1, 2022, collecting tokens worth more than 2.8 million USD. Prosecutors say he then moved the tokens through a series of wallets and converted them into other cryptocurrencies to hide where they came from.
The bigger damage came from what happened next. His transactions, visible on the public blockchain, effectively published the recipe. Other users copied the attack and drained a Nomad-controlled wallet holding more than 186 million USD in user funds. At the time, Paradigm researcher Sam Sun described the aftermath as a “frenzied free-for-all” because copying the exploit required almost no technical skill. Prosecutors allege that days later, Block returned some tokens and messaged a senior Nomad official on Telegram, offering to give back the rest in exchange for a payment for finding the flaw. He then cut off contact, and Nomad went to US law enforcement.
The Ruling That Matters: “The Code Allowed It” Is Not a Defense
Block’s defense before Israel’s Supreme Court rested on two arguments that will sound familiar to anyone who has followed crypto crime cases. First, he argued that his transactions used functions that were available inside Nomad’s automated system — nothing was “hacked” in the traditional sense of breaking a lock. Second, he argued that because blockchain transfers are publicly recorded, the money laundering allegations made no sense: everything was visible to anyone who cared to look.
The Supreme Court rejected both arguments. It held that exploiting a programming flaw can constitute unlawful computer intrusion even where the software technically permitted the action. It also found that publicly visible transactions do not necessarily reveal who stands behind a wallet, and that visibility does not rule out deliberate efforts to conceal the origin of funds. Supreme Court President Isaac Amit later rejected Block’s request for a further hearing, closing the door on his appeal. The Jerusalem District Court had already approved the extradition in July 2025.
Why This Precedent Echoes Beyond Nomad
The ruling lands at a moment when courts and regulators worldwide are wrestling with the same question: if a smart contract executes exactly as written, can exploiting its bugs be a crime? The Israeli Supreme Court’s answer — yes — aligns with the direction US prosecutors have been pushing for years. For an industry still reeling from the record Binance hack and watching investigators chase stolen billions across decentralized protocols, the decision strengthens the hand of law enforcement in several ways:
- Intent and exploit economics now weigh more than permission. The court looked past the fact that the protocol allowed the transfers and focused on the deliberate use of a flaw to take other people’s money.
- Public ledgers do not launder money clean. Hopping between wallets and converting assets can still count as concealment even when every step is on-chain.
- Border-hopping no longer delays justice indefinitely. Israel’s willingness to extradite signals that friendly jurisdictions will keep processing US crypto cases, even four years after the fact.
What Remains for Nomad’s Victims
The August 2022 exploit drained Nomad of nearly all its funds, and recovery has been slow. In December 2025, the Federal Trade Commission proposed a settlement with Illusory Systems, Nomad’s operator, finding that the bridge lost 186 million USD after hackers exploited a poorly tested software update. The settlement would require the company to return recovered funds to users who have not been reimbursed. Nomad managed to recover about 22 million USD in the days immediately after the hack — a fraction of the total losses.
The Verdict for Everyday Investors
If you hold crypto, this case is less about Nomad and more about the rules of the road taking shape around you. The era in which exploiters could plausibly claim they were just “using the protocol as designed” is closing, court by court. That is good news for confidence in crypto markets: when thieves know that friendly courts abroad will extradite them and that “the code let me” is not a shield, the calculus behind multimillion-dollar exploits gets riskier. But it is also a reminder that legal clarity arrives slowly, while your funds can vanish in a single transaction. Bridges remain among the most-attacked corners of crypto, and no court ruling will return your money quickly. Keep long-term holdings off exotic protocols, be skeptical of bridges that promise speed without audits, and treat any yield platform’s smart contracts as unproven until they have survived real-world attempts to break them.
The cryptocurrency market remains highly volatile. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.
Israel’s top court basically saying a bug being exploitable doesn’t make it free money. Good. The code is law crowd spent years romanticizing a 186 million dollar drain as some kind of public audit.
‘the code let me do it’ held up about as well as telling the judge the front door was unlocked. 2.8 million for him, copycat chaos for everyone else
genuine question, does this precedent reach the dozens of copycats who grabbed Nomad funds after the initial exploit? half of crypto twitter was bragging about free money that week
that is the part nobody wants to answer. hundreds replayed the same copy paste tx after him and the DOJ picks exactly one guy to extradite. enforcement capacity not legal principle decides who pays
capacity argument cuts both ways tho. they started with the guy whose tx opened the replay window, that is just sequencing. the copycats bragging about free money that week should still be sweating
unlocked vault is still burglary. glad a court finally put it in writing
the code-allowed-it defense lasted exactly zero seconds once real prosecutors showed up. fraud is fraud, the tokenomics dont matter
the rename plus the fresh russia-bound passport right before the airport arrest is the part no code defense survives. you do not book a one way exit if you think you just found a bug bounty
2.8 million for him personally and prosecutors say his tx kicked off a copycat run that drained everything else. insane leverage for one exploit
one exploit tx as a trigger for a 186 million drain is the strongest argument against the free for all framing. he lit the match on purpose, the fire spreading does not undo the arson
the wild part is the hundreds of copycats who replayed the Nomad tx were mostly never charged at all. one extradition and the rest just walk