Lee Thompson on Bob Sambol’s Indictment

Nancy got a comment from Bob Sambol on his indictment. Through his attorney, Lee Thompson, the man who lent Sambol the money that he allegedly purloined, has released the following statement:

Mr. Thompson is saddened by the indictment of Bob Sambol. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Sambol were friends for many years. Mr. Sambol traded on this friendship and created the false pretense of a business deal to take $300,000 from Mr. Thompson. Even after the ruse was discovered and Mr. Sambol refused to return the money, Mr. Thompson tried to help his friend. Upon learning of Mr. Sambol’s numerous debts and suspected gambling problems, Mr. Thompson arranged for multiple professionals to assist Mr. Sambol with his financial situation, at no cost to Mr. Sambol. Mr. Sambol refused this help. After more than a year of Mr. Sambol’s excuses and false promises, the District Attorney’s Office chose to refer this case to a Dallas County Grand Jury. Despite Mr. Sambol’s numerous debts and obligations, he continues to cling to an extravagant lifestyle including membership at the exclusive Dallas National Golf Club.


Get a weekly recap in your inbox every Sunday of our best stories from the week plus a primer for the days ahead.

Find It

Search our directories for...









View All

View All


19 responses to “Lee Thompson on Bob Sambol’s Indictment”

  1. Bill says:

    Sounds like Bob will be learning first hand who serves up the Biggest Carrot(tm) in town.

  2. amanda says:

    Questions for Thompson…so you expect a court to believe that he was unaware of Bob’s reputation (after being friends for years)? And that he likes to bet on ponies/ b-ball, etc.? And that he plays golf at Dallas National? Really?

    I don’t even know Bob, but I know that stuff, and so did your client.

    Mr. Thompson, I think your client is about to feel the pain of a 300K stupid tax. You can try to embarrass someone like Bob, but he’s Bob. That isn’t going to be enough to get the money back.

  3. @amanda Wow, what a perfect response. 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.

  4. Bethany says:

    So wait…you can sue a company if you don’t get an ROI within a certain time frame?

    *gazes at BLC*

  5. Dallasite says:

    Bethany? Really, are you back?

  6. amanda says:

    She’s back!

  7. microdermer says:

    An indictment for fraud was handed up by a grand jury, which found cause to make the charge. How is this abuse of power?

    It would have been an abuse of power if the D.A.’s office had not presented it to a grand jury to decide.

  8. Fred says:

    Microdermer- A grand jury is responsible for deciding if there is enough evidence for an indictment; not weather that case should be tried in civil or criminal court. THAT is Craig Watkin’s responsibility. Maybe Watkins was giving an interview on DNA or paying is State Bar of Texas dues.

  9. Chris says:

    sounds like a Bob is going to jail.

  10. microdermer says:

    The fact is the grand jury did decide there was cause for a criminal indictment. So for now, it is in the proper venue.

  11. Casie Pierce says:

    If there was a contract involved, then how is it not a criminal case?

  12. Amy S says:

    It’s Friday, game rained out at Reverchon tonight and Bethany’s back. I need to buy a lottery ticket.

  13. Wm. B. Travis says:

    Shouldn’t this be before a civil-law court?
    Victory or Death!

  14. Neal says:

    @amanda: “so you expect a court to believe that he was unaware of Bob’s reputation (after being friends for years)? And that he likes to bet on ponies/ b-ball, etc.? And that he plays golf at Dallas National? Really?”

    Admitting your client’s guilt is a pretty terrible defense strategy unless you’re trying to get leniency on your sentence. Anyway, I doubt Thompson cares much about looking stupid at this point. He probably already feels stupid, deceived and betrayed. He probably knows he won’t get his money back, thus no point in filing a civil suit for damages – Bob may still have some assets but the eventual judgment might put him into bankruptcy and force Thompson to line up behind Bob’s secured creditors. The criminal angle is the only other way for him to pursue a remedy. Assuming the DA’s office didn’t take up the case solely as a favor to Thompson (a distinct possibility of course), he must have presented them with evidence of fraud/theft compelling enough to present to a grand jury. That said, the standard of proof to a grand jury is very low. It’s easy to get an indictment on flimsy evidence. Bob already admitted to Nancy Nichols that he hasn’t paid the money back. Now a jury will have to decide whether he stole it. Even if the defense shows Thompson knew about the gambling etc., it will be irrelevant to determining guilt or innocence in the criminal case and probably any civil case as well. If you invest in the business of a known gambling addict and he steals the money to fund his habit, you may be an idiot but the other guy is still a thief.

  15. Neal says:

    Sorry, I didn’t know the word that begins with an “i” and sort of rhymes with “pretty it” would get bleeped.

  16. SB says:

    I heart you, Bethany. Welcome back sweetheart.

  17. jim says:

    A lot more to this story than anyone even realizes

  18. Jack E. Jett says:

    Nothing like this ever happens at Sizzler.

  19. Walter Webber says:

    It seems the local District Attorney’s Office is now a leg breaker for hire