Euro Pacific bank is a scam
- Thread starter sonato
- Start date
- Status
Just so everyone knows, Brent De Jong has told mutiple lies in his affidavid. The worst one is that the Receiver agrees that for purpsoes of settleing claims with customers, Qenta should use the Sept 30, 2022 asset valuatoins. In other words, Qenta has lied to the court by stating that the Receiver agrees that Qenta should keep for itself all of the appreciation of those assets that took place since that date. That the Receiver is OK with Qetna selling the gold and silver for $50 millioion, returning just $25 million to customers, and keeping the other $25 million for itself as a windfall.︀
Brent is also trying to disctedit me by claiming the bank was put into receiverhip︁ due to years of my mismanagment. But Brent knows that I was never an officer︂ or an emoloyee of the bank. I had no role at all in the managment︃ of the bank. I was a shareholder and unpaid board memeber only. Also, Brent knows︄ that the offical reasons OCFI gave for putting the bank into Receivership had nothing to︅ do with me. OCIF cited failure to compley with mimimum net capital requirements as the︆ sole reason for liquidation. OCIF did not shut down the bank due to mismangment, by︇ me or by anyone else. Of course ,he should also knwo by now that the︈ real reason the bank was shut down was as a PR stunt for the J5.︉
Brent is also trying to disctedit me by claiming the bank was put into receiverhip︁ due to years of my mismanagment. But Brent knows that I was never an officer︂ or an emoloyee of the bank. I had no role at all in the managment︃ of the bank. I was a shareholder and unpaid board memeber only. Also, Brent knows︄ that the offical reasons OCFI gave for putting the bank into Receivership had nothing to︅ do with me. OCIF cited failure to compley with mimimum net capital requirements as the︆ sole reason for liquidation. OCIF did not shut down the bank due to mismangment, by︇ me or by anyone else. Of course ,he should also knwo by now that the︈ real reason the bank was shut down was as a PR stunt for the J5.︉
Classic “red herring” or “ad hominem” reasoning on the part︊ of Mr de Junk, with no relevance to the real issue in the present standoff,︋ which is this: one party appears to be holding customers’ assets hostage unless they accept︌ a 50% haircut as a ransom; the other wants to regain control over said assets︍ and return them to customers in full.
My opinion is that Brent's goal is to keep as much of customer's money as he can get away with. My goal is to prevent him from doing this. In 2021, when an accounting error exposed a $4.5 million hole, I immediartely deposited the funds personallly to protect customers and maintain the bank's 100% reserve position. After doing that I'm not going to sit by and allow Brent to effectively steal tens of millions from those same customers.
The Federal court upheld the state court TRO. There is a hearing later today. I think my case is strong. I would be iron clad if the Receiver had filed the same action, as Qenta's only defense is to misrepresent the Receiver's postion and claim that I lack standing. I storngly believe I have standing and can prevail on my own, but of course I would prefer the Receiver's active support.
If you don't have a pacer account , you can track the progress here : https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/59362651/Schiff_v_Qenta_Inc_et_al
I am fairly certain that the Receiver told individual customers, after Qenta's July 11 proposal, that he clearly did not agree with Qenta's historical-valuation haircut terms. Hopefully you have︀ material of this nature that could be admissible as evidence, if nothing more substantive is︁ available from him.
Yes, including a Aug 7th letter from the Receiver's attoney to Qenta's attoney that the Receiver "catagorically rejects Qetna's narrative," and that the gold, silver, and mutual funds belong to the customers, and that Qenta has no right to liquidate them. I just wish he would join me now in demanding the assets︀ be returned to the bank. I no longer trust Qenta at all to do this︁ job.
Does make one wonder what Mr De Junk's stance would have been if the metals had gone down 50% rather up 100% over the period!
I have bad news. The judge vacated the TRO, ruling that I don’t have standing. Had the Receiver filed the action, we would have won. I tried my best to persuade him to do the right thing, but he refused. I have never seen anything like this in my life. It was obvious what he should have done. In normal circumstances, a Receiver does everything he can to protect assets for creditors. This would have been so easy for him to do.
I am trying to decide where to go from here. But without the Receiver on board, the customers will have to file their︀ own action against Qenta. They are not bound by the arbitration provisions of the Purchase︁ and Assumption Agreement, so can sue Qenta in federal court, as customers have standing,Qenta has︂ their property.
In the meantime, my advice is not to accept any lowball offers from︃ Qenta to accept substantial discounts on what you are owed. I just feel so bad︄ that the OCIF Commissioner put you all in this position. She took the bank away︅ from me under the pretense of protecting customers, but customers needed no protection until she︆ appointed a Receiver. That Receiver just gave away $80 million of assets to Qenta,that’s 60%︇ of the bank’s estate.
There is no doubt in my mind that had the Receiver︈ fullfilled his fiduciary duty to customer, no Opt-in customers would have lost money, including all︉ the appreciation on their assets, assuming Qenta actually has the assets it claims to have.︊ I even offerd to cover all of the legal costs myself for the bank if︋ the Receiver simply allowed me to include him in the action.
Also, if customers sue︌ Qetna they will win. Customers own the assets, that is not even in dipsute. The︍ Receiver at least acknowldges that. He also acknowledged that Qetna had no right to sell︎ the assets or pay customers less than their current market value. So if you guys️ sue you will win. I hope you do.. Brent De Jong should not be allowed to get away with this crime.
I am trying to decide where to go from here. But without the Receiver on board, the customers will have to file their︀ own action against Qenta. They are not bound by the arbitration provisions of the Purchase︁ and Assumption Agreement, so can sue Qenta in federal court, as customers have standing,Qenta has︂ their property.
In the meantime, my advice is not to accept any lowball offers from︃ Qenta to accept substantial discounts on what you are owed. I just feel so bad︄ that the OCIF Commissioner put you all in this position. She took the bank away︅ from me under the pretense of protecting customers, but customers needed no protection until she︆ appointed a Receiver. That Receiver just gave away $80 million of assets to Qenta,that’s 60%︇ of the bank’s estate.
There is no doubt in my mind that had the Receiver︈ fullfilled his fiduciary duty to customer, no Opt-in customers would have lost money, including all︉ the appreciation on their assets, assuming Qenta actually has the assets it claims to have.︊ I even offerd to cover all of the legal costs myself for the bank if︋ the Receiver simply allowed me to include him in the action.
Also, if customers sue︌ Qetna they will win. Customers own the assets, that is not even in dipsute. The︍ Receiver at least acknowldges that. He also acknowledged that Qetna had no right to sell︎ the assets or pay customers less than their current market value. So if you guys️ sue you will win. I hope you do.. Brent De Jong should not be allowed to get away with this crime.
I can't file anything. Either the Receiver has to file, or the customers. The best thing would have been the Receiver, as it would have been so easy and he would have won for sure. Qernta has no case if the Receiver files. But he refuses to do his job. It really is incredible. I've never seen anything like this. The former OCIF Commissioner is to blame, as she appointed him
- Status