Wonder why he was only charged with contempt, rather than defrauding investors?
danielheath 1 hours ago [-]
If a judge says you're in contempt, you'll get charged with contempt immediately - all the people required are present.
To charge him with defrauding investors requires a whole different group of people to get involved.
Additionally, those people need enough evidence to have a chance of conviction. "He refused to answer questions about it" is not actually evidence.
VSerge 2 hours ago [-]
^this. The person described here appears like a crook who pocketed millions and stiffed investors, so why just a contempt charge?
In any case, probably not a romantic explorer figure as the clickbaity title suggests.
Refreeze5224 3 hours ago [-]
The real story here is that civil contempt can net you an indefinite prison sentence without a conviction, and if you're lucky a judge will decide to let you out. Over something you may or may not even know.
MBCook 3 hours ago [-]
“Federal law generally limits jail time for contempt of court to 18 months. But a federal appeals court in 2019 rejected Thompson’s argument that that law applies to him, saying his refusal violated conditions of a plea agreement.”
I mean clearly that has to happen otherwise people could just refuse to participate in court hearings and be exempt from laws.
Analemma_ 3 hours ago [-]
How else could it possibly work? The justice system depends on judges being able to compel action. Within the guardrails established by the system (e.g. no self-incriminating testimony, if you’re in the US), I don’t have a problem with refusal to e.g. turn over evidence just resulting in detention until you comply. It’s not a prison sentence, since you can get out any time you want.
bravoetch 3 hours ago [-]
You ask how else could it possibly work. How about charge him with a crime first, then detain him if he's convicted. The idea that you can imprison someone forever without a charge is insane.
tptacek 3 hours ago [-]
You can't resolve criminal liability without compliance to judicial authority. It's not even a meaningful demand. If you don't trust the judiciary you can't trust any other component of the system!
bulbar 1 hours ago [-]
What happens when you are not guilty and/or not in posession of whatever you are supposed to hand over?
Such systems must be built in a way that allow to correct errors, because it's well known that errors are made.
bear141 3 hours ago [-]
The “system” is comprised of normal people. These normal people are vastly more concerned about furthering their own career,ie “Winning”. No one should trust this system to ever find any real justice. It is a joke.
Brian_K_White 3 hours ago [-]
Then you can charge him with the crime of contempt, and allow that charge to be proven or disproven through actual due process.
There is no such thing as a valid reason to skip the part where you have to prove guilt. Even for a judge. Frankly especially for a judge. Everyone else has the excuse that they aren't lawyers. What's a judges excuse?
You can't prove or disprove anything with someone who refuses to comply with the courts. This is due process.
tick_tock_tick 3 minutes ago [-]
No your explicitly not required provide testimony against yourself the fifth amendment should absolutely override any "contempt" bullshit of him being willing to incriminate himself.
jrflowers 2 hours ago [-]
Exactly. Seeing as there is no presumption of innocence in the US and the burden of proof is the defendant’s, it makes sense that a judge can put anyone in jail indefinitely without proving anything. If he had died in prison it would have been due process because contempt is meant to be so punitive that it acts as a deterrent to any other person that sets foot in a court room from refusing to be compelled into making self-incriminatory statements.
Now obviously this entire line of reasoning would be completely nullified if there were examples to the contrary or if any of the things mentioned had been adjudicated before but
FpUser 3 hours ago [-]
Total BS. You can do anything. We have politicians to create meaningful laws. What we have instead in this case is a fucking faschists.
SatvikBeri 3 hours ago [-]
They charged him with contempt of court, which is a crime, after 3 years where he'd been avoiding demands to appear in court.
cortesoft 3 hours ago [-]
Doesn't this give the government the unchecked ability to detain whoever they want indefinitely, then?
They could just demand someone turn over evidence that doesn't exist, or that they know the person doesn't know about?
Analemma_ 3 hours ago [-]
That’s not how any of this works. You still have rights when you’re being detained for contempt, you can claim you’re being held arbitrarily for being asked to turn over evidence that doesn’t exist, and an appeals court will decide if that’s true and release you if so. It’s not a magic incantation to hold anyone indefinitely at random.
MBCook 3 hours ago [-]
Isn’t that exactly what this article is about? A guy that was released from jail on contempt because it can’t be used indefinitely?
bobsmooth 3 hours ago [-]
After a decade in prison without being charged.
tptacek 3 hours ago [-]
He was charged, with contempt.
bram98 3 hours ago [-]
After a decade.
MBCook 3 hours ago [-]
The standard federal limit is 18 months. An appeals court said that didn’t apply to him because he was violating a plea agreement that he voluntarily entered into.
giancarlostoro 3 hours ago [-]
> since you can get out any time you want.
If you dont hate whats requested, how do you get out any time you want?
awesome_dude 3 hours ago [-]
> I don’t have a problem with refusal to e.g. turn over evidence just resulting in detention until you comply. It’s not a prison sentence, since you can get out any time you want.
It is if you don't have the item(s) or knowledge being asked for.
Analemma_ 3 hours ago [-]
> Thompson was held in contempt for refusing to answer questions about the location of about 500 missing gold coins
You can claim “I forgot” in response to questioning, and the judge will decide on the balance of evidence whether you appear to be telling the truth. Contra the panicky memes about contempt of court, people aren’t indefinitely detained because they forgot something. But that’s clearly not what happened here.
tick_tock_tick 2 minutes ago [-]
Dude I've forgotten computer passwords I've used 4-5 days a week for years; one day it was just gone.
FpUser 3 hours ago [-]
>"the balance of evidence "
Do not make me laugh. What evidence? Persons can and do forget most obvious things.
FpUser 3 hours ago [-]
>"How else could it possibly work?"
Here is the idea - six month in jail for contempt.
> The justice system depends on judges being able to compel action"
It does not. The person gets punished and this should be the end of it. Instead they have Machiavellian twist bypassing all standard checks and bounds.
Daddy they've hurt my ego.
wesammikhail 3 hours ago [-]
The is the most totalitarian bullshit I've ever heard on HN.
The fact that you're okay with another human, just because they have a robe, to compel you to do as they ask OR rot away without a conviction is utter madness.
Imagine if this was the 1500s and the man in the robe was a priest. Would you be okay with that? and if your answer is some form of distinction without a difference argument, I'd urge you to not even reply.
tptacek 2 hours ago [-]
Seems sort of like he was held for as long as he'd have been held if he'd been judged guilty of stealing everything he was accused of stealing, and if he wanted to default himself into prison for that stretch without a trial, the judge was content to oblige him.
consumer451 3 hours ago [-]
The last time I saw this story, I learned that he was actually jailed for defrauding investors.
Was that not the case? If it is, is the BBC in the unavoidable click-bait game now?
adi_kurian 3 hours ago [-]
Yes mate insane clickbait.
Look at these passages:
"Investors in Thompson's venture accused him of cheating them out of promised proceeds and after years on the run he was jailed in 2015 on a criminal contempt charge.
But last year, the judge agreed to end Thompson's civil contempt sentence, arguing that he was unlikely to ever offer an answer, according to CBS News."
ojbyrne 4 hours ago [-]
“Ship of Gold in the Deep Blue Sea” is a book about the treasure hunt, recommended.
rgovostes 2 hours ago [-]
It is a fantastic book. The author was a spectator for much of the treasure hunt. The adulation of Thompson is amusing in light of the fact that, 15 years after publication, he was arrested for defrauding his investors.
Thompson himself published a coffee table book about the find, "America's Lost Treasure."
But also amusingly Deep-sea treasure hunter jailed for 10 years scores legal win but won't be freed (10 points, 1 year ago, 2 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42923251
arjie 3 hours ago [-]
Jesus, what a tale
> Investors in Thompson's venture accused him of cheating them out of promised proceeds and after years on the run he was jailed in 2015 on a criminal contempt charge.
> They had been staying in a hotel for two years, paying cash for their room under a false name and using taxis and public transport to avoid detection.
But unless he plans on leaving secret wealth to his children, it scarcely sounds like a win even if he did actually get the $400 million. The investors are likely to watch him closely post-release for any actual accessing of the money. But even otherwise, what a life. Even if you have the $400 m worth of money somewhere, you're still living for years out of a hotel in Boca Raton, FL only going places via taxi and public transport while trying not to leave a paper trail. Then you're in jail for 10 years.
I suppose he can live out his seventies and later, but damn.
TurdF3rguson 3 hours ago [-]
Living out of hotels in Boca Raton, FL and going places via taxis is a win for at least 90% of the world's population.
arjie 2 hours ago [-]
Haha, true! But he could have had millions any way. It's not like he was going to live like a p90 person in the world!
TurdF3rguson 2 hours ago [-]
Well look at it this way, sure he could have split the money, paid his share of taxes and still had enough left over for a nice house.
But the kind of person who thinks that way never becomes a treasure hunter in the first place.
MBCook 3 hours ago [-]
I wonder if there is a statute of limitations on suing an estate.
Let’s say he dies in 5 years. 10 years later his children suddenly clearly become rich and can’t explain how.
Clearly it looks like he passed the gold to them somehow.
Could the investors then somehow sue his estate then to get the value of the gold back? Or would it be too late?
For all we know he stole money, but not what they thought. Maybe after his time in hiding there’s only a few thousand left and it’s all largely moot anyway.
He’d be more sympathetic if he hadn’t been hiding and suspiciously paying cash for everything for years.
bowmessage 3 hours ago [-]
The thing about gold is, it’s probably quite easy to secretly leave to your heirs.
arjie 3 hours ago [-]
Yes, I think so too. It's the only worthwhile reason to commit this crime, surely. You'd be relying on the claimants abandoning their claim at some point because surely the statute of limitations doesn't just apply because you were particularly good at hiding something. Realistically, they'd have to sell this to a collector many years later for much less than what they're worth (since they can't be sold on with proper provenance tracking).
It doesn't even seem worth it since the original investors wanted a fraction of the proceeds not all of it. Just seems like a strange choice, but I suppose that's why I'm not an intrepid underwater gold adventurer and this guy is.
bombcar 4 hours ago [-]
Interesting that they stayed in Florida instead of absconding with the coins to where they'd be out of reach.
AreShoesFeet000 4 hours ago [-]
This is interesting. They really can’t keep you locked forever.
Barbing 4 hours ago [-]
>released from prison after a decade
>Tommy Thompson, 73
No not _forever_ :)
MBCook 3 hours ago [-]
This link said that his contempt violated a plea agreement and that’s why they were able to hold him longer than the standard limit of 18 months.
To charge him with defrauding investors requires a whole different group of people to get involved.
Additionally, those people need enough evidence to have a chance of conviction. "He refused to answer questions about it" is not actually evidence.
In any case, probably not a romantic explorer figure as the clickbaity title suggests.
https://apnews.com/article/tommy-thompson-gold-coins-shipwre...
Such systems must be built in a way that allow to correct errors, because it's well known that errors are made.
There is no such thing as a valid reason to skip the part where you have to prove guilt. Even for a judge. Frankly especially for a judge. Everyone else has the excuse that they aren't lawyers. What's a judges excuse?
Now obviously this entire line of reasoning would be completely nullified if there were examples to the contrary or if any of the things mentioned had been adjudicated before but
They could just demand someone turn over evidence that doesn't exist, or that they know the person doesn't know about?
If you dont hate whats requested, how do you get out any time you want?
It is if you don't have the item(s) or knowledge being asked for.
You can claim “I forgot” in response to questioning, and the judge will decide on the balance of evidence whether you appear to be telling the truth. Contra the panicky memes about contempt of court, people aren’t indefinitely detained because they forgot something. But that’s clearly not what happened here.
Do not make me laugh. What evidence? Persons can and do forget most obvious things.
Here is the idea - six month in jail for contempt.
> The justice system depends on judges being able to compel action"
It does not. The person gets punished and this should be the end of it. Instead they have Machiavellian twist bypassing all standard checks and bounds.
Daddy they've hurt my ego.
Imagine if this was the 1500s and the man in the robe was a priest. Would you be okay with that? and if your answer is some form of distinction without a difference argument, I'd urge you to not even reply.
Was that not the case? If it is, is the BBC in the unavoidable click-bait game now?
Look at these passages:
"Investors in Thompson's venture accused him of cheating them out of promised proceeds and after years on the run he was jailed in 2015 on a criminal contempt charge.
But last year, the judge agreed to end Thompson's civil contempt sentence, arguing that he was unlikely to ever offer an answer, according to CBS News."
Thompson himself published a coffee table book about the find, "America's Lost Treasure."
But also amusingly Deep-sea treasure hunter jailed for 10 years scores legal win but won't be freed (10 points, 1 year ago, 2 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42923251
> Investors in Thompson's venture accused him of cheating them out of promised proceeds and after years on the run he was jailed in 2015 on a criminal contempt charge.
> They had been staying in a hotel for two years, paying cash for their room under a false name and using taxis and public transport to avoid detection.
But unless he plans on leaving secret wealth to his children, it scarcely sounds like a win even if he did actually get the $400 million. The investors are likely to watch him closely post-release for any actual accessing of the money. But even otherwise, what a life. Even if you have the $400 m worth of money somewhere, you're still living for years out of a hotel in Boca Raton, FL only going places via taxi and public transport while trying not to leave a paper trail. Then you're in jail for 10 years.
I suppose he can live out his seventies and later, but damn.
But the kind of person who thinks that way never becomes a treasure hunter in the first place.
Let’s say he dies in 5 years. 10 years later his children suddenly clearly become rich and can’t explain how. Clearly it looks like he passed the gold to them somehow.
Could the investors then somehow sue his estate then to get the value of the gold back? Or would it be too late?
For all we know he stole money, but not what they thought. Maybe after his time in hiding there’s only a few thousand left and it’s all largely moot anyway.
He’d be more sympathetic if he hadn’t been hiding and suspiciously paying cash for everything for years.
It doesn't even seem worth it since the original investors wanted a fraction of the proceeds not all of it. Just seems like a strange choice, but I suppose that's why I'm not an intrepid underwater gold adventurer and this guy is.
>Tommy Thompson, 73
No not _forever_ :)
https://apnews.com/article/tommy-thompson-gold-coins-shipwre...
> A total of 161 investors had given Thompson $12.7m (£9.4m) to find the ship on the understanding that they would see returns on their investment.
Both the criminal and civil contempt arose from his refusal to abide court orders from the civil suit.[1]
[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdoh/pr/treasure-hunter-sentenc...
And yes, this was easily google'able too.