Discussion

Treasure hunter freed from jail after refusing to turn over shipwreck gold

gnabgib: Previously (4+6 points) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47329627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47372912But 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

AreShoesFeet000: This is interesting. They really can’t keep you locked forever.

Barbing: >released from prison after a decade>Tommy Thompson, 73No not _forever_ :)

bfivyvysj: So just need to wait them out eh.

SilverElfin: Is there any obligation to turn over treasure you find yourself? And why?

wahern: There is when you take $12 million from investors:> 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.

tehlike: Depends on the jurisdiction.ChatGPT answer Yes—in many places you are legally obligated to report or turn over treasure you find, but the exact rule depends heavily on the country or state and on where and how the treasure was found. The reason comes from a mix of property law, cultural heritage protection, and public interest.

bombcar: Interesting that they stayed in Florida instead of absconding with the coins to where they'd be out of reach.

consumer451: The last time I saw this story, I learned 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?

Refreeze5224: 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.

ojbyrne: “Ship of Gold in the Deep Blue Sea” is a book about the treasure hunt, recommended.

JDDunn9: If investors gave you $12.7 million to fund your expedition, you have an obligation to split the treasure as you promised.

Analemma_: 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.

sooheon: Wonder why he was only charged with contempt, rather than defrauding investors?

bravoetch: 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: 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!

cortesoft: 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?

MBCook: 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?

Analemma_: 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.

awesome_dude: > 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_: > Thompson was held in contempt for refusing to answer questions about the location of about 500 missing gold coinsYou 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.

giancarlostoro: > since you can get out any time you want.If you dont hate whats requested, how do you get out any time you want?

MBCook: 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.https://apnews.com/article/tommy-thompson-gold-coins-shipwre...

wesammikhail: 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.

bram98: After a decade.

bobsmooth: After a decade in prison without being charged.

tptacek: He was charged, with contempt.

Brian_K_White: 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?

tptacek: You can't prove or disprove anything with someone who refuses to comply with the courts. This is due process.

FpUser: >"the balance of evidence "Do not make me laugh. What evidence? Persons can and do forget most obvious things.

FpUser: Total BS. You can do anything. We have politicians to create meaningful laws. What we have instead in this case is a fucking faschists.

FpUser: >"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.

MBCook: 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.

MBCook: “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.”https://apnews.com/article/tommy-thompson-gold-coins-shipwre...

bear141: 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.

adi_kurian: 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."

SatvikBeri: Per a different article, he pled guilty to the contempt charge: https://apnews.com/article/tommy-thompson-gold-coins-shipwre...

tptacek: 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.

SatvikBeri: They charged him with contempt of court, which is a crime, after 3 years where he'd been avoiding demands to appear in court.

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.

arjie: 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.

MBCook: 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: The thing about gold is, it’s probably quite easy to secretly leave to your heirs.

TurdF3rguson: 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: 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.