UPDATED: Dallas restaurateur Bob Sambol, of Bob’s Steak & Chop House, indicted for theft

Billusa99, says:

Without passing comment on anything else, this is how things typically work. Bad business deal conflicts typically end up in civil courts. This one has already passed the Grand Jury test and has proceeded into a criminal indictment.

Scott, says:

It's safe to say that the grand jurors had much more information than any of us do. Regardless of whether Sambol is ultimately convicted of anything, the very fact of indictment means that at least 9 ordinary citizens believed the evidence justified criminal charges.

That means they didn't think it was a mere lack of communication or misunderstanding. Maybe they were right, maybe they were wrong, but it seems odd to confidently second-guess the grand jurors without seeing the evidence on which they based that decision.

jtmbls, says:

It doesn't take much to get a True Bill from the Grand Jury in the state of Texas. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the stat that I read was that less than two percent of cases that go before the GJ are No-billed.

Also keep in mind... "Neither the accused nor their attorneys are present and are generally not even allowed in a grand jury proceeding. A criminal defense attorney is also not allowed to provide assistance or representation for the accused in a grand jury indictment." http://www.lawinfo.com/fuseaction/Cli...

amuse, says:

This would seem to be a civil matter. Lee Thompson and Bob Sambol obviously have a difference of opinion on what is owed and on what terms it should have been repaid. Lawyers and judges trained in securities laws will need to review the investment documents and other evidence to determine who is right. Of course, ALL of that will take place in a civil court.

The involvement of the district attorney is CLEARLY an abuse of power and the result of a favor owed and now repaid. By turning this into a criminal matter Craig Watkins or someone on his staff and Mr. Thompson have irreparably harmed a local business owner.

Mr. Thompson isn't some poor widow that was conned by a fly-by-night operator; instead he is a savvy investor and Bob is a well respected restaurateur.

Scott, says:

We'll see if Alex's read on the situation is justified by the facts, as they continue to emerge.

If Sambol spent Thompson's money on contractors, consultants, architects, etc., for the expansion, he should have no difficulty producing the documentation to show where the money went.

But what if the money is gone and Sambol can't show where it was spent? Or what if prosecutors can show that it was spent to retire personal debts or for some other purpose unrelated to the expansion?

If I give a stockbroker money to put in GM stock and I lose money on the stock, there's no crime. But if I give a stockbroker money to put in GM stock and he loses it all at the racetrack, that's not "capitalism"--it's a crime.

amuse, says:

Some are reporting that the DA got involved AFTER Bob tried to pay Lee back with a hot check. This of course is a criminal act - i.e. theft by check. Ironically, had Bob NOT tried to repay Lee he would have forced Lee to handle this in a civil court.

Scott, says:

You do know, amuse, that civil and criminal redress are not mutually exclusive? It's not at all unusual for the same acts to give rise to civil litigation and criminal prosecution. Your framing of this discussion as an either/or (i.e., civil/criminal) is mistaken.

There are also plenty of situations where one may incur civil liability, without committing a crime. You apparently think this is one of them. But why? Do you have information that isn't publicly available? Do you have all the information that the grand jury had? More than they had?

I can understand the desire to not leap to conclusions about someone's guilt on the basis of an indictment. But you've gone way beyond that, insisting not only that Sambol has not committed any crime, but that the DA is behaving corruptly and abusively. Again, what basis do you have for claiming that?

dolcicakes, says:

Mr. Sambol clearly has an unfortunate problem that he cannot control. He needs to address it sincerely, seek real help, and make good on the loan. I assume that if he did this, this lawsuit would go away.

Billusa99, says:

amuse states in his blog: "Investor Lee Thompson evidently invested $300,000 in Bob’s restaurant and now he alleges that Bob never paid him back."

That's not what I read and that's not what was reported. Sambol was lent the money to build a ciagr and wine bar and it was never built.

Sambol also gave him a 300k check and then kept telling him not to cash it. I suspect that's where the heart of the idictment will lead.

ch0, says:

Have some wine with your beef!

jtmbls, says:

Speculations and conjecture always make for fine reporting.

DC, says:

Some more DFW hair pulling queens fighting over the beef?

DC, says:

Or will the flaming meat be doused?

jtmbls, says:

Doyle - Have you watched or listened to HLN(1090 a.m.) lately? Seems to be a lot of both in their "reporting" but otherwise point taken.

ronroberts, says:

i have had several business dealings with bob over the years. i owned a new car dealership in wichita falls for 20+ years and bob purchased vehicles for himself, his wife and mother in law. in my dealings with him he was always fair, honest and did what he said he would do. this indictment does not sound like the bob sambol that i know.