Law&Crime Sidebar - Playboy Model's Rich-Man Robberies Take Disturbing Turn: Cops

Episode Date: August 12, 2026

Former Playboy and Penthouse model Adva Lavie faces serious felony charges in Los Angeles County after allegedly using dating apps to target and rob wealthy men. Now the case has taken a dramatic turn following new charges against her billionaire ex-fiancé, Stephen Cloobeck, who is accused of attempting to dissuade witnesses from testifying against her. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber breaks down the wild new developments in this alleged southern California crime spree alongside former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson, Heather Berzak & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

More twists and turns in the case of a former model for Penhouse and Playboy who allegedly turned to a life of crime. We're talking about Adva Levitt, also known as Mia Ventura, currently locked up in connection with an apparent dating app theft scheme. And this time, she won't be getting another opportunity at bail after apparently breaking the rules. And now, new details are coming out about her billionaire ex-fiance and his alleged involvement in her crime. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Webber. So we have covered the case of social media creator Adva Levy here on Sidebar several times. She is the glamorous model who's gone from the cover of Playboy and Penhouse to a special bulletin

from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. That's because investigators across Southern California suspect the 29-year-old use dating apps to meet up with older, wealthier men with. the alleged motive of stealing luxury items from their homes. And she's reportedly been doing this or allegedly been doing this for years. Well, now she's back behind bars accused of even more crimes. And we have learned some crazy new details about how far these alleged schemes went. LeVie started making headlines last year when the Malibu Lost Hills Station put out a special bulletin about it.

As part of the bulletin, detective said, quote, suspect Levy has been involved in a series of residential Burr. burglaries throughout L.A. County targeting older men posing as a girlfriend or companion on social media dating platforms and applications. And the bulletin apparently included photos of two cars that she's known to drive, a black Porsche SUV, a white Mercedes, Ben Saddam. And police caught up with her earlier this year. They charged her with six felony counts. You're talking two counts of unauthorized use of personal identifying information, two counts of grand theft, one count of first degree residential burglary, one count of first degree residential burglary with person present.

She entered her not guilty plea, and she was arraigned at the Van Nuys Courthouse on April 6th. She was released on bond with an ankle monitor. Then you go to the end of July. Los Angeles deputies arrested Levy again. And this time, it was because she apparently had a warrant out of Riverside County, where she now faces a grand theft charge. Fox 11 reported on an arrest warrant declaration that was filed. by Indio police. And a man had reported to them that they invited Levy to his home to go to

Coachella last year. He allegedly claims that she stole an $8,600-dollar Rolex watch, a pair of $700 Louis Vuitton glasses, and an $1,800-Luiveton cardholder wallet. Core paperwork revealed by ABC 7 Los Angeles details another alleged crime spree, because prosecutors claim that Levy was dating a 78-year-old man that she reportedly robbed blind. The DA's office claims that Levy took more than $17,000 in cash, $100,000 in designer clothes, and gold coins worth more than $4,000.

Detectives claim she later posted a TikTok video where she gives an apartment to her and some of the stolen clothing can allegedly be seen in her closet. ABC 7 also reported that Levy told the same man that her mother had died, that she needed $25,000 to cover the funeral expenses, she then reportedly traveled to her home country of Israel

where she was seen with her mom, who was very much alive. And remember that ankle monitor that she was wearing or supposed to be wearing? Well, according to Fox 11, the district attorney's office says she took it off. So now she faces a misdemeanor violation of a court order on top of her other charges. The Los Angeles Times reports that LeViz attorneys

wanted her placed in a diversion program. So that would mean they would move her toward mental health treatment versus criminal punishment. Per the L.A. Times, her attorneys argued that she was a victim of physical and sexual abuse, that she had been sex trafficked, that she has PTSD. They had her evaluated apparently by mental health experts and submitted the report to the judge.

Problem is, the judge questioned Lovie's truthfulness. The paperwork reportedly said that each of Levy's alleged victims had given her a large amount of drugs and alcohol, but the L.A. Times reports, the judge called that saying, this is just not true. The court ended up ruling Levees' mental state played no role in her alleged crimes. That's a big defeat, and we'll talk about the legal implications of that in a minute. But the court also denied her bond saying Levy had been recorded on a jail phone call talking about fleeing to Israel. According to an L.A. Times reporter who was in the courtroom, Levy appeared distressed during her hearing. Often jailed.

gestured at friends who had reportedly come to show their support, even apparently turning to the gallery as she left and saying, thank you for coming. I love you. And then you have a new twist. LeVis's former fiancé has apparently got caught up in all of this. And his identity might surprise you. 64-year-old real estate icon and billionaire Stephen Klubeck. He's a big name in California, especially after announcing he was going to run for governor. He dropped out of the race last year through his support behind Representative Eric Swalwell, whose own political ambitions went down in flames. This is thanks to accusations of sexual assault, which he is denied. But we told you in a previous episode of Sidebar that Levy was married to a porn star named Eden Ives, who apparently goes by

the moniker Big Nick. This is on sites like Onlyfans. The New York Post reports that the two finalized the divorce around the same time that Levy got engaged to Kleubeck. And according to the L.A. Times, Kluback was arrested in May in charge with three counts of attempting to dissuade a witness from testifying and one count of harassment for making annoying phone calls. So prosecutors alleged that Klubeck called an attorney, swore him, threatened him, his property, and his family. Fox 11 says the court documents indicate Klubeck tried to convince three male victims not to testify against Adva Lavee.

He entered a not guilty plea. He was given a $300,000 bond. An attorney for Klubeck told Fox 11 he denies all the allegations. The California Post reports that Levy had been living in Klubeck's multi-million dollar mansion, but that she moved out and the engagement was called off after her arrest, Kleubeck is also allegedly no longer paying her legal fees. But Levy, by the way, faces up to 11 years in prison if she's convicted of the theft charges out in Los Angeles County. Let's talk about this. All right, let me bring on former federal prosecutor Nima Romani.

Nima, so good to see you. Thanks for taking the time. You are our Los Angeles criminal law expert. Talk to me, our California expert, talk to me what happens here when Adva Levy, if we're understanding us correctly, is now facing charges in multiple jurisdictions. Who gets the first crack at her? Usually the first to file gets the first crack. But in this particular case, because most of the allegations are in Los Angeles County, Riverside may decide to take a back seat. Obviously, prosecutors want to present the strongest case.

And whether it's more victims or more prior bad acts witnesses, it really cuts against her argument that this was some sort of misunderstanding or the items were misplaced. If you have 10 or more victims in L.A., that's really where the case should be prosecuted first. What do you make of her legal team's efforts to try to get her into a diversion program as opposed to the criminal justice system? If I'm understanding that correctly, first of all, how does that typically work and why did it not work here? Yeah, I'm laughing. It was A for effort, but it's not going to work in this case. So diversion, and there's versions of this in different states, but what it does is really puts the case on hold. It continues the arraignment. And in a felony case, it can actually be continued for up to two years. And if the defendant complies with the terms of the diversion program, which in this case would be mental health treatment, at the end of the diversion, the case actually gets dismissed. There's different ways to do it. Sometimes you'll plead guilty, but they won't enter the judgment. And if you keep your nose clean, the case will be dismissed.

But this is called diversion. Sometimes it's called DEJ, deferred entry of judgment. But really, the programs are the same. They are for people to get the help that they need. Oftentimes it's drugs. Sometimes it's mental health. In this particular case, the defense argued that she had PTSD. And that's the reason she.

engaged in this criminal behavior. And they submitted different reports for mental health professionals to support it. But what the judge said is, look, even if she has PTSD, what does that have to do with stealing from rich old men? There was really no connection whatsoever. That's why the request for diversion, and in this case, mental health diversion, was rejected by the court. So in other words, it's not impossible that a diversion program could be accepted by a court, even in a case of theft. right if the circumstances were different or the defendant was different right I mean I guess it's usually when I've heard of diversion somebody who gets you know there's a DUI a

driving related offense a drug possession charges things like that right is it impossible that it could have been based on the charges that she's facing the severity of the charges or is it the specific circumstances of this defendant it's obviously more difficult with theft cases than drug and alcohol cases it's not impossible. I think the challenge here is you have someone that's going on apps, right? Someone who was stealing from everyone. It was primarily men, but there's allegations that she was in a visa and stealing from women as well. And the fact that she had a previous case in another county that she was on ankle monitoring, she allegedly took off that ankle monitor, right? So the judge

is probably thinking, well, here's someone in another case that really isn't able to comply with the terms of pretrial supervision, it's unlikely that the diversion is causally related to any mental health issues. And even if it was, I've serious concerns about this particular defendant complying with the diversion program. She'll probably just keep stealing. By the way, you know, LeVie's attorneys, they claim that she was the victim of ongoing abuse. And it seems like they were even trying to say at the hands of her ex, Adon Ives. or Edon Ives. And while she was in jail, apparently multiple calls between her and Ives were recorded.

And they were apparently speaking lovingly to each other, using pet names, saying, I love you. That felt quite problematic for her and quite problematic for her defense strategy, right? No question, Jesse. Terrible look. You're portraying someone as a victim, but we all know those jail calls. They're recorded. And you hear you have some. We know, but don't, but criminal defendants don't know that?

I mean, there's signs. There's a whisper that before this call is being recorded, you really don't have any rights of privacy in jail. And obviously, as prosecutors, we love it because it's a treasure trove of information. And people say all sorts of stupid things. And in this particular case, it really undermines the argument that she was a victim of this individual. Well, she's really sort of bragging and boasting about, you know, taking advantage of these men. And probably one of the worst things was there's some discussion of her potentially fleeing to Israel. Now, if you're the judge and you hear all that, diversion is going to be denied every single time.

What is going to be her defense to these charges? I think she's probably going to have to plead. And, you know, look, a young, attractive woman taking advantage of an old man, that's the tale is oldest time, right? But just be a sugar daddy like everyone else or extort them, you know, when they're married, stealing from them. And if you steal from multiple people, I think there is no real legal defense here, Jesse. I think she's going to be convicted, especially a victim after victim comes and tells the same story. Now, maybe they want to play a little bit of a game of chicken. Obviously, if you're a victim here, it's probably embarrassing.

maybe they're thinking that some of them may not want to come to court and actually testify that they were taken advantage of by this young woman. But if those victims show up and they all tell the same story about how they were, you know, taken advantage of, you know, they let this woman into her home. She still watches, cash, jewelry. I think it's going to be a pretty quick guilty verdict if this actually goes to trial. And I mentioned 11 years on the staff. charges. What exactly could she be looking at in terms of prison time? Yeah, so if you're looking at

the charges here, the first degree residential burglary is the most serious. It carries a 246 potential sentence in terms of the range, the high end, middle, and low. So in California, if you enter a home with the intent to commit a felony and someone is there, that is one of the more serious crimes. It's actually a crime of violence. Now, you don't have to break in, right? People holding a burglary, you know, I broke into the house. As long as you intend to commit that felony when you enter, that's burglary. Oftentimes, you'll see it in the shoplifting context, for instance. But the way it works is, and there's always grouping in any kind of criminal justice system. So the way it works is getting the legal weeds a bit. The maximum exposure for that top count

is six years. And then the lesser counts, the ones that are less serious, the way you add it up, is you take one third of the middle range in general. So some of these have like a 16 month, two year, three year. You'll take one third of that two year. You add it all up. And that's how you get to that 11 to 12 years. Significant, significant. I mean, I thought this was pretty shocking too,

that she reportedly took off her ankle monitor multiple times. You know, during her most recent court appearance, the court discovered she wasn't wearing it. And according to the California Post, she had, actually been admonished by the judge at least twice about breaking the bail rules. But apparently she was let off with a warning both times. Is this typical? Is giving a defendant leeway like this typical?

What do you make of that? No, it's not typical. And frankly, when she took it off, she should have been remanded to custody. Look, maybe she's getting pretty girl privilege, even in the courtroom. But I think, you know, her luck has run out. She's probably someone that's never faced any consequence. for her actions, even though she was previously arrested, she had this pending case. She took off her monitor.

She wasn't in custody. So she probably thought that she could get away with it. And I think those days are over. And hopefully she stays in custody until she either pleads guilty or she's convicted by a jury of her peers. What do you think about the charges against Kleubeck? It's fascinating case. So you have an ex who allegedly threatens a witness. to try to dissuade them from testifying.

I assume it's another victim here. A fascinating case, kind of side case, but it is a parallel case. That's going to be interesting to see if she pleads. Does she flip against her ex? Probably to save herself and kind of cooperate and try to get some time off. But it is a fascinating case.

And it just goes to show what some of these men will do when they're manipulated by women like this. They'll even commit crimes. in addition to giving up money to young, beautiful woman. Is people talking about this, Klubeck? Absolutely. People are talking about the case. The case is getting a lot of press here in L.A.

Because she did it to so many people. And the fact that she is this former model and she used these dating apps. Again, but Klubeck, Klubeck especially, right? Because he was high profile. He was very high profile, someone who's well off. There's been plenty of stories about that case as well. The case is just getting a lot of attention, including his case. By the way, it's our understanding that Levy reportedly indicated that she wanted to testify against Klubeck in this witness tampering case.

If that's true, why do you think that would be? How would that even work? Would she have to stipulate to anything she's accused of doing? I think probably what would happen is she would plead. It would put sentencing on hold. This is how I would typically do it when I was a prosecutor. Because you want to make sure you lock in that guilty plea and you want to let her work and shave some time off her sentence.

So she would plead, I put the sentencing on hold. And I would give her a reduction if she actually went and she testified. Because look, you can't be intimidating witnesses in a criminal case. That's a felony. So I think ultimately she will do that because she's someone that if I doesn't care much about him, just to guess here based on her relationship with her ex and all these men. And she's ultimately going to see the writing on the wall. And she's going to say, listen, I should do this.

I should save myself and I should get less time. There's a reason the vast majority of criminal defendants flip and cooperate. And I fully expect her to be one of them. As I'm going over this case and every time I go over it, these are allegations, right? She's innocent unless proven guilty, 100%. But I think to myself, is there ever a benefit of a defendant testifying and explaining their narrative? So particularly if you know you're talking about a defendant who kind of raised this idea of maybe she's the victim in all this, she's suffering. But my gosh, if she took the stand, I'm just thinking prosecutors confronting her with one alleged liar misrepresentation after another, after another, after another.

and I just feel that this is a case that stands out where I would imagine an attorney would be chaining her from the desk to say, you cannot go on the stand, even though it's a defendant's choice. But like, am I thinking about that the right way? Because it's all about credibility. It's all about truthfulness. And I haven't seen a case like this in quite some time where you have a defendant accused of such duplicity, such alleged lies and misrepresentation in so many different aspects, both in the legal case, and also what she's accused of, the court's comments about her.

Am I right about that? You're right, Jesse. These cases often come down to credibility. And look, you're right. These are just allegations. Everyone's innocent to proving guilty. But if these allegations are true, she will go down as one of the biggest scam artist, con artist, in recent memory, right?

So if the prosecution does have the goods, they have those victims ready to go. and all those men walk into that courtroom and tell the same story, there's no amount of good looks that are going to get her out of this. Again, she's probably someone that has been used to getting her way because of those looks, and she's taken advantage of it. But I do think those days are numbered because she took down just one too many victims. Let's see what happens. Neiman Romani, always appreciate you taking the time.

Thank you so much, sir. Thanks, Jesse. Great being on, as always. Talk to you soon. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. You can also check us out on NBC's Peacock as well. You want to follow me, X Instagram, My News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. See you next time, everybody.