That is correct. The current market value of︁ what Qenta lists as the assets is about $80 million. So Qenta wants to return︂ less than half. Legally they are required to return 100%. All they can keep is︃ $500K, which was what they paid the bank to purchase those assets and the corresponding︄ liabilities to customers. In other words, Qenta only purchased the right to custody those assets︅ for customers. They also have no right to bill the bank nearly $5 million for︆ "termination" costs.
Ticker tape by TradingView
Euro Pacific bank is a scam
- Thread starter sonato
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
In Qenta's letter to the receiver they hide those gains. They listed the value of "liquidated" assets as of Sept 30 2022, without any reference to the current liquidation value of those assets. Qenta clearly hoped the receiver had no idea that gold and silver prices had basically doubled since then. They have no legal right to keep those gains. That's why they did not ask. They just deceived the receiver as to what those assets are worth. Technically Qenta are︀ not asking to keep those gains, but its demanding $40 million to settle its bogus︁ legal claim against the bank. The receiver needs to reject this claim and demand the︂ immediate and unconditional return of 100% of the bank's assets. Qenta can return the gold,︃ silver, and mutual funds in one day. It's just a matter of informing the custodians︄ to reassign ownership. The receiver can liquidate everything, and have about $125 million in cash︅ to distribute to the bank's customers. The bank has no other liabilities, so this is︆ a very simple process. It should not take more than a month to complete.
Firstly, thanks to Peter for explaining what’s going on here with all this. It is very much appreciated. And thanks too to Daniel Boros for answering my question a couple of weeks ago.
I have a query about the practicalities of helping my mother with her claim form. My late father had precious metals with EPB. The statements only list my father’s name and Client Services at EPB said the account was registered in his name. However, we have documentation from the account setup process ten years ago which named my mother as co-account holder. Given that my father passed away very suddenly in late︀ 2023, would she still need to get the necessary apostilles to claim the assets or︁ can she claim it outright since we think she is co-account holder? We tried to︂ ask the receiver but alas got no reply.
I have a query about the practicalities of helping my mother with her claim form. My late father had precious metals with EPB. The statements only list my father’s name and Client Services at EPB said the account was registered in his name. However, we have documentation from the account setup process ten years ago which named my mother as co-account holder. Given that my father passed away very suddenly in late︀ 2023, would she still need to get the necessary apostilles to claim the assets or︁ can she claim it outright since we think she is co-account holder? We tried to︂ ask the receiver but alas got no reply.
Yes, the current market value of the assets︁ listed is about $80 million . Qenta wants to keep $42 million and return $38︂ million to the bank, to distribute to customers. That is why its offer is so︃ outrageous.
Since the Purchase and Assumption agreement is terminate, Qenta is required to return all the︆ assets it received to the bank. Qenta can not demand to keep the appreciated value︇ of those assets for itself, not can it arbitrarily impose damages related to costs it︈ alleges it incurred. The Agreement it self establish NYC arbitration as the venue for either︉ party to seek damages related to the contact or breach thereof. So first Qenta must︊ return the $80 million in assets that it holds. If it then wants too seek︋ $5 million to cover costs, it needs to file that claim in NYC. Qenta won't︌ do that, as it will lose. The bank on the other hand can file an︍ arbitration to recover losses it suffered due to Qenta's breach. The bank will prevail on︎ that action. Any money recovered would go to customers.
Since the Purchase and Assumption agreement is terminate, Qenta is required to return all the︆ assets it received to the bank. Qenta can not demand to keep the appreciated value︇ of those assets for itself, not can it arbitrarily impose damages related to costs it︈ alleges it incurred. The Agreement it self establish NYC arbitration as the venue for either︉ party to seek damages related to the contact or breach thereof. So first Qenta must︊ return the $80 million in assets that it holds. If it then wants too seek︋ $5 million to cover costs, it needs to file that claim in NYC. Qenta won't︌ do that, as it will lose. The bank on the other hand can file an︍ arbitration to recover losses it suffered due to Qenta's breach. The bank will prevail on︎ that action. Any money recovered would go to customers.
Thanks, Peter, for all clarification. Should the OPT-INs immediate actions go along these lines?:
1. File a claim with the receiver just as the OPT-OUTs. Apparently someone has been notified he is now an OPT-OUT, but the Receiver is not communicating with all of us. I have written to him and he has not replied.
2. Write the Receiver a letter regarding Qenta's fraudulent termination conditions and the damages we will incur.
3. Notify and update OCIF with the current state of affairs. I would go as far as to file a complaint against the Receiver for lack of transparency and communication.
What steps can be taken to avoid Qenta cashing in over 50% of the metal's value?
1. File a claim with the receiver just as the OPT-OUTs. Apparently someone has been notified he is now an OPT-OUT, but the Receiver is not communicating with all of us. I have written to him and he has not replied.
2. Write the Receiver a letter regarding Qenta's fraudulent termination conditions and the damages we will incur.
3. Notify and update OCIF with the current state of affairs. I would go as far as to file a complaint against the Receiver for lack of transparency and communication.
What steps can be taken to avoid Qenta cashing in over 50% of the metal's value?
I am taking care of it myself. I have fully apprised the︀ Receiver of the situation by email. His lawyer threatened me with legal action if I︁ sent him any more. So he has received them, and should have read them. So︂ he has no excuse if he agrees to allow Qenta to misappropriate any of the︃ bank's assets. My concern is that he has sent emails to Opt-In customers claiming the︄ assets transferred to Qenta are not his problem, as he is not overseeing them as︅ part of the liquidation. Those where untrue statements. Qenta has custody of the majority of︆ the bank's assets. It's his responsibility to make sure 100% of those assets are secured︇ from Qenta. No conditions. No other payments for costs or any work they do to︈ return the assets. If they want to claim those cost the Agreement itself provides that︉ they must file an arbitration in NY court. They won't as they would lose, and︊ end up owing the bank additional money to cover its losses related to Qenta's breach.︋ I have sent a demand to Qenta to return all of the bank's assets (current︌ market value of approximately $80) they acknowledged they still posses by Friday July 25th.
well I sent him a lot of emails, all short, to update him on new information as I found it. He never acknowledged receiving a single one. The lawyers also demanded that I stop posting false information on this chat about the bank or the receiver. I replied twice asking them to identify any false information that I've posted. I have not received a reply.
Dear Opt-in customers,
I have been apprised by some of you that the Receiver has been sending emails to Opt-In customers that precious metals and other assets transferred to Qenta were excluded from the liquidation process, that those assets have never been under his administration, and that they are not part of the liquidation process that he is overseeing. All such statement were false. Yes, there was an Agreement to sell those assets, and the corresponding customer liabilities, to Qenta. But that sale and assumption never closed. See the below paragraph taken from the Agreement itself.
"Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in︀ this Agreement, AT THE CLOSING, Purchasers shall purchase the Assets and assume the Liabilities object︁ thereof, and Seller shall sell, assign, transfer, convey and deliver to Purchaser, free and clear︂ of all Encumbrances, all of Seller's right, title and interest in and to such Assets︃ and Liabilities."
So while the assets transferred to Qenta's custody prior to closing, the actual︄ sale of those assets never took place, since Qenta terminated the agreement before it closed.︅ So contrary to the repeated claims of the receiver, ownership of those assets and the︆ corresponding customer liabilities belonged to the bank the entire time. So they have always been︇ under his administration, and have been included in the liquidation process the entire time, whether︈ he realized that or not.
If anyone else has emails from Wigberto in which he︉ absolves himself of all responsibility for these assets, please forward copies to me at [email protected]
Thanks,
Peter Schiff
I have been apprised by some of you that the Receiver has been sending emails to Opt-In customers that precious metals and other assets transferred to Qenta were excluded from the liquidation process, that those assets have never been under his administration, and that they are not part of the liquidation process that he is overseeing. All such statement were false. Yes, there was an Agreement to sell those assets, and the corresponding customer liabilities, to Qenta. But that sale and assumption never closed. See the below paragraph taken from the Agreement itself.
"Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in︀ this Agreement, AT THE CLOSING, Purchasers shall purchase the Assets and assume the Liabilities object︁ thereof, and Seller shall sell, assign, transfer, convey and deliver to Purchaser, free and clear︂ of all Encumbrances, all of Seller's right, title and interest in and to such Assets︃ and Liabilities."
So while the assets transferred to Qenta's custody prior to closing, the actual︄ sale of those assets never took place, since Qenta terminated the agreement before it closed.︅ So contrary to the repeated claims of the receiver, ownership of those assets and the︆ corresponding customer liabilities belonged to the bank the entire time. So they have always been︇ under his administration, and have been included in the liquidation process the entire time, whether︈ he realized that or not.
If anyone else has emails from Wigberto in which he︉ absolves himself of all responsibility for these assets, please forward copies to me at [email protected]
Thanks,
Peter Schiff
Also, it just occurred to me, but since Qenta never actually bought the bank's assets, including the gold and silver, it never acquired legal title. All that changed was custody, not ownership. That is 100% clear from the contract Brent signed. So if Qenta refuses to return the bank's property that's grand larceny. If it converts any of that property to its own use, that will just make the crime worse. In fact, his letter to the receiver is extortion, another crime. It may also be wire fraud (RICO) and a criminal violation of federal bankruptcy laws, as assets belong to a bank in receivership.︀ I don't think Brent wants to go to prison. So the threat should help the︁ bank get its property back.
All of that makes sense to me and I appreciate that you are taking care of it, but I still think that the OPT-INs must act, and as a minimum a complaint must be filed. The Receiver left us, OPT-INs, in the hands of Qenta while focusing just in the OPT-OUTs, proven by the fact that the he is communicating just to random OPT-IN customers and that regular general updates on the liquidation website are overdue. OPT-OUTs have a DEADLINE to file their claims but nothing has been yet said to us in that respect, and that is worrying after Qenta’s termination letter to the︀ Receiver,
And any OPT-IN who is not in this chat is completely ignorant of Qenta’s termination terms.
Qenta’s termination letter should have triggered a cautionary stop (or a “pause”, if not a “reset”) in the process. The logical next step would have been to cancel the claim deadline, recover 100% of the assets, turning all customers into OPT-OUTs and asking everyone for their claims. The fact that it hasn’t worries me and signals the moment to act before it’s too late.
Qenta’s termination letter should have triggered a cautionary stop (or a “pause”, if not a “reset”) in the process. The logical next step would have been to cancel the claim deadline, recover 100% of the assets, turning all customers into OPT-OUTs and asking everyone for their claims. The fact that it hasn’t worries me and signals the moment to act before it’s too late.
Correct. To put the receiver in the best possible︁ light, he never really read the Purchase and Assumption Agreement, and did not realize that︂ all the assets transferred to Qenta remained the property of the bank. He further assumed︃ that the bank's liability to the customers also transferred to Qenta. It did not. That︄ liability was only going to transfer to Qenta when the Agreement closed, which it never︅ did. I have already reminded the receiver of the obligation he clearly had no idea︆ he had. So far all I've gotten from him was an email from his lawyer︇ threatening me and demand that I stop sending him emails. I think Opt-ins should also︈ remind him, either individually or through a lawyer, that there is no difference between Opt-in︉ and Opt-out customers, especially now since the Purchase and Assumption Agreement which would have transferred︊ the Opt-in Assets and liabilities to Qenta has been cancelled. The only difference is that︋ the Opt-out customers only hold cash. The opt-in customers own a combination of cash, gold︌ and silver, and mutual funds. The receiver has the same fiduciary duty to all customers︍ and he has the responsibility to safeguard all of the bank's assets, especially those that︎ where transferred to Qenta and remain in Qenta's custody. Qenta holds about $80 million of️ the bank's assets, while the receiver reports holding about $48 million.
I have emailed Qenta, OCFI and the Receiver letting them know in no uncertain terms, that Qenta's purchase agreement termination MUST NOT be accepted. I instructed OCFI and the Receiver to demand the return of all Opt-In Customer assets from Qenta immediately and only return the $500K Qenta paid and nothing more. I think all Opt-In customers should at minimum email OCFI and the Receiver demanding this. If I do not receive a response by COB Monday next week, I will submit a formal complaint, as this seems to be the only way to get OCFI or the Receiver to respond to any of my︀ emails.
Correct. To put the receiver in the best possible︁ light, he never really read the Purchase and Assumption Agreement, and did not realize that︂ all the assets transferred to Qenta remained the property of the bank. He further assumed︃ that the bank's liability to the customers also transferred to Qenta. It did not. That︄ liability was only going to transfer to Qenta when the Agreement closed, which it never︅ did. I have already reminded the receiver of the obligation he clearly had no idea︆ he had. So far all I've gotten from him was an email from his lawyer︇ threatening me and demand that I stop sending him emails. I think Opt-ins should also︈ remind him, either individually or through a lawyer, that there is no difference between Opt-in︉ and Opt-out customers, especially now since the Purchase and Assumption Agreement which would have transferred︊ the Opt-in Assets and liabilities to Qenta has been cancelled. The only difference is that︋ the Opt-out customers only hold cash. The opt-in customers own a combination of cash, gold︌ and silver, and mutual funds. The receiver has the same fiduciary duty to all customers︍ and he has the responsibility to safeguard all of the bank's assets, especially those that︎ where transferred to Qenta and remain in Qenta's custody. Qenta holds about $80 million of️ the bank's assets, while the receiver reports holding about $48 million.
You should revise that. The termination should be accepted. It's the terms︁ that should be rejected. Since the Agreement was terminated, Qenta has no choice but to︂ unconditionally return 100% of the asset transferred into its custody. The receiver must be instructed︃ not to accept anything less, and to use the legal means at his disposal to︄ secure the full recovery of those assets. Even if Qenta is correct that the bank︅ owes it money for its losses related to the delay, which I don't think it︆ does, Qenta needs to file that claim in NYC arbitration. But even if it wins,︇ any judgement would be junior to the bank's customers. Qenta can't cut the line to︈ get ahead of senior creditors.
You should revise that. The termination should be accepted. It's the terms︁ that should be rejected. Since the Agreement was terminated, Qenta has no choice but to︂ unconditionally return 100% of the asset transferred into its custody. The receiver must be instructed︃ not to accept anything less, and to use the legal means at his disposal to︄ secure the full recovery of those assets. Even if Qenta is correct that the bank︅ owes it money for its losses related to the delay, which I don't think it︆ does, Qenta needs to file that claim in NYC arbitration. But even if it wins,︇ any judgement would be junior to the bank's customers. Qenta can't cut the line to︈ get ahead of senior creditors.
Poor wording on my part. The email I sent to OCFI and the Receiver is clear that its Qenta's terms that should be rejected, not the termination
Hi all (and specifically customers with PM Accounts),
As part of a dossier I’ll be sending on to the Receiver imminently (in support of our claims to the full and in‑kind return of our PM holdings from Qenta), I’m trying to clarify whether a specific gold/silver T&C or contract existed – does anyone recall signing one, and have a copy? Please let me know asap – any details would be hugely helpful.
As part of a dossier I’ll be sending on to the Receiver imminently (in support of our claims to the full and in‑kind return of our PM holdings from Qenta), I’m trying to clarify whether a specific gold/silver T&C or contract existed – does anyone recall signing one, and have a copy? Please let me know asap – any details would be hugely helpful.
Correct. To put the receiver in the best possible︁ light, he never really read the Purchase and Assumption Agreement, and did not realize that︂ all the assets transferred to Qenta remained the property of the bank. He further assumed︃ that the bank's liability to the customers also transferred to Qenta. It did not. That︄ liability was only going to transfer to Qenta when the Agreement closed, which it never︅ did. I have already reminded the receiver of the obligation he clearly had no idea︆ he had. So far all I've gotten from him was an email from his lawyer︇ threatening me and demand that I stop sending him emails. I think Opt-ins should also︈ remind him, either individually or through a lawyer, that there is no difference between Opt-in︉ and Opt-out customers, especially now since the Purchase and Assumption Agreement which would have transferred︊ the Opt-in Assets and liabilities to Qenta has been cancelled. The only difference is that︋ the Opt-out customers only hold cash. The opt-in customers own a combination of cash, gold︌ and silver, and mutual funds. The receiver has the same fiduciary duty to all customers︍ and he has the responsibility to safeguard all of the bank's assets, especially those that︎ where transferred to Qenta and remain in Qenta's custody. Qenta holds about $80 million of️ the bank's assets, while the receiver reports holding about $48 million.
You should revise that. The termination should be accepted. It's the terms︁ that should be rejected. Since the Agreement was terminated, Qenta has no choice but to︂ unconditionally return 100% of the asset transferred into its custody. The receiver must be instructed︃ not to accept anything less, and to use the legal means at his disposal to︄ secure the full recovery of those assets. Even if Qenta is correct that the bank︅ owes it money for its losses related to the delay, which I don't think it︆ does, Qenta needs to file that claim in NYC arbitration. But even if it wins,︇ any judgement would be junior to the bank's customers. Qenta can't cut the line to︈ get ahead of senior creditors.
Here is what I was able to︎ determine. The physical silver bullion is still in a vault at Silver Bullion in Singapore.️ So all that needs to happen is for Silver Bullion to reassign that silver back to the bank. The gold that was at Silver Bullion was transferred to Switzerland, after control was assigned to Qenta. Qenta than swapped that physical gold for "paper gold," which is basically a contract with a bullion bank for a set quantity of gold. So Qenta needs to assign that contract to the bank. Then the receiver can close it out, realize the full appreciation, not the value as of Sept 2022. The way I figure it all the Opt-in customer balances would equal the values received from selling all︀ the gold and silver now at today's prices. The Opt-out customers are all in cash.︁ I don't have the exact numbers. But if all customers are owed $123 million, and︂ the bank has $125 million, that all customers are made whole, including Opt-in customer's gains,︃ and there is $2 million left over for me. If customers are owed $130 million,︄ than all customers would get back 96 cents on the dollar (For Opt-in that's 96︅ cents based on the appreciated value of their metals) and there would be nothing left︆ over for me.
You should revise that. The termination should be accepted. It's the terms︁ that should be rejected. Since the Agreement was terminated, Qenta has no choice but to︂ unconditionally return 100% of the asset transferred into its custody. The receiver must be instructed︃ not to accept anything less, and to use the legal means at his disposal to︄ secure the full recovery of those assets. Even if Qenta is correct that the bank︅ owes it money for its losses related to the delay, which I don't think it︆ does, Qenta needs to file that claim in NYC arbitration. But even if it wins,︇ any judgement would be junior to the bank's customers. Qenta can't cut the line to︈ get ahead of senior creditors.
Here is what I was able to︎ determine. The physical silver bullion is still in a vault at Silver Bullion in Singapore.️ So all that needs to happen is for Silver Bullion to reassign that silver back to the bank. The gold that was at Silver Bullion was transferred to Switzerland, after control was assigned to Qenta. Qenta than swapped that physical gold for "paper gold," which is basically a contract with a bullion bank for a set quantity of gold. So Qenta needs to assign that contract to the bank. Then the receiver can close it out, realize the full appreciation, not the value as of Sept 2022. The way I figure it all the Opt-in customer balances would equal the values received from selling all︀ the gold and silver now at today's prices. The Opt-out customers are all in cash.︁ I don't have the exact numbers. But if all customers are owed $123 million, and︂ the bank has $125 million, that all customers are made whole, including Opt-in customer's gains,︃ and there is $2 million left over for me. If customers are owed $130 million,︄ than all customers would get back 96 cents on the dollar (For Opt-in that's 96︅ cents based on the appreciated value of their metals) and there would be nothing left︆ over for me.
Andrew,
That is exactly the first step we︁ need to take, leaving room for escalation. If the Receiver starts receiving claims and letter︂ like yours from the OPT-INs, he will know we are making him responsible, and it︃ is more likely that he stops Qenta.
If you shared the letter we could use︄ it, if not directly, as a template for ours. That will not only save us︅ time (of the essence, now) but will tell the Receiver we are coordinating efforts and︆ are aiming for further action. Thanks!
That is exactly the first step we︁ need to take, leaving room for escalation. If the Receiver starts receiving claims and letter︂ like yours from the OPT-INs, he will know we are making him responsible, and it︃ is more likely that he stops Qenta.
If you shared the letter we could use︄ it, if not directly, as a template for ours. That will not only save us︅ time (of the essence, now) but will tell the Receiver we are coordinating efforts and︆ are aiming for further action. Thanks!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.