lets see on wikipedia, what a conspiracy is:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy

A conspiracy, also known as a plot, is a secret plan or agreement between people (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder, treason, or corruption, especially with a political motivation,[1] while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it.

so there seem to be some mayor points:

• for what purpose or motivation was it (unlawful or harmful)?
• under what surroundings (like breaking laws that were in effect)?
• what would be done? (like murder,treason,corruption)
• from whom would it be hidden?

purpose: unlawful or harmful? i suggested a purpose, thats right. wether a billionaire NOT dying actually is harmful is worth a separate discussion, but having a plan to not die in a submarine “accident” by itself would usually rather be considered a rescue, not causing harm. did physical harm to persons happen in the story that i suggested? nope, the opposite would be true. but would it have been unlawful? on open seas leaving a vessel that is about to sink usually also is not considered an unlawful action. also to consider something to be unlawful, at least some law about the happening would need to have been in effect. this could maybe be answered with the question under which countries flag the submarine was registered with. For most or all ship accidents one can hear in the news like ‘a ship under panama flag’ (or literally any other country) which i did not hear a single time for the sub. also the sub was not even “transported” by the supporting vessel to the site but towed, thus it could be considered a completely separate vessel under assumingly no flag at all. talking about unlawfullnes of actions in international territory seems a bit offtopic. but i guess that these oceanic laws have very few laws about any unlawfulness of leaving your own sub before letting it implode.

now of course there are other people involved. family members may suffer the loss. but as for my suggested imaginary story line the persons that simply left the vessel would not contact their family any more at least for some time. but is it unlawful to not contact family members? i guess not. it might be unlawful to claim youre dead (wtf) but that is not what would have happened in the imagined story line i suggested to make much more sense to me. in that scenario other people (like gov agencies) would do that claim. not preventing gov to do false claims is usually not considered unlawful by govs that do false claims, otherwise … well that would be a very!! different story haha.

not telling anyone to still be alive may be odd, but not unlawful by itself. if one has a contract with an insurance company that states such an obligation, it would be failing to comply with a contract but not necessarily “unlawful” as such a contract is not a law, but a contract and might state like loss of insurance if one failed to comply. but then even if not telling your insurance company to still be alive is maybe a crime within the us, outside of it things could be very different especially when not in any country at all. like some laws do not count in some countries and thus doing so is not unlawful there.

would the intent to get a new identity, dropping the old one be harmful or unlawful? Not directly, there are lawful ways to get new identities in many countries on the world, most of them are pretty lawful and mostly the harm had then already been done to the person that gets the new identity. so i guess the intent of getting a new id is neither harmful nor unlawful and could simply be a formal process within the laws of the destination country. it could even be part of a process to protect persons who are in danger and law enforcement said, that a billionaire to get abnew id should also do something to disappear also in the minds before getting their new id and thus it could be completely possible that disappearing is in compliance with the law to protect a person who claimed to have been in danger and needed a believable disappearance for their security.

now to me it looks like i found some good arguments how the imaginary story line was neither harmful nor unlawful. and also described that it could be argued that no laws were in effect that would apply and make a life rescue mission an unlawful event in the mids of the ocean. even laws could actually have been used in compliance with gov entities to protect someone from an imaginary danger in this imaginary case.

in theory i could say that its not a conspiracy what i suggested as main factors do not apply or at least do not have to apply and i should be done now but lets look at the other points for the sake of completeness:

murder: wouldn’t have been done, but the exact opposite: saving lifes. again, discussion if rescueing billionaires could be considered harmful to the rest of the world, would be a bit too offtopic and not even in question here.

treason: wikipedia has a definition about that too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

Treason is the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance.

Now i do not see a state beeing attacked in my imaginary story.

corruption:

Corruption is a form of dishonesty or a criminal offense which is undertaken by a person or an organization which is entrusted in a position of authority, in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for one’s personal gain.

i don’t see a person or organization which was entrusted in a position of authority being dishonest in my imaginary story line. which authority was given to rush or oceangate? or which involved organization did something dishonest? none? so no corruption took place.

same is with that “political motivation” mentioned in wikipedia about conspiracy, i do not see a political motivation involved in what i wrote.

i’ld say there is no conspiracy in the suggested imaginary story i wrote, as not even one of the major points of a conspiracy would match at least a little bit. it would possibly be near to a crime, but without a law beeing in effect, it cannot be called a crime, right? so the story i wrote is not about a conspiracy.

did i overlook something? or are you just completely wrong?