Euro Pacific bank is a scam
- Thread starter sonato
- Start date
- Status
Yes this is a scam. It possible the "buyer" is a shell company owned by Qenta. You do not need to settle your claim. Just demnd that Qenta return you assets in kind or you will file a lawsuit to recover them. At best the offer you get will require you to accept a settlement at Sept. 2022 prices. That means Qenta will keep at least 50% of the value of your gold and a significant percentage of your mutual funds, especially if you own the︀ bank's gold fund. Of Qenta where making a legitmate offer, they would not be hiding︁ it behind an NDA.
Yes, they need to convince customers to accept this valuation as they have no legal right to use it on their own. But if you agree they can keep use it to get your money faster, then you have given them that right. However I would still consider this fraud, as they would be withholding key information and misrepresnting your true legal options to get you to agree to accept terms you would not agree to had they fully disclosed your options.
If Qenta says they can facilitate a private sale of customers’ claims to a mystery third-party buyer, that strongly indicates they have sufficient transfer capability over those assets to also be able release them, in kind, to customers directly (or to an institution of their choosing) - they cannot hide behind operational excuses.
Now, to me, that strongly smells of bad faith dealing: delaying or refusing customers’ legitimate demands for immediate release in kind, yet simultaneously marketing those assets around to third parties behind the scenes?
I really hope de Jockstrap emails me with this garbage soon, as I very much forward to giving that︀ weasel a piece of my mind.
Now, to me, that strongly smells of bad faith dealing: delaying or refusing customers’ legitimate demands for immediate release in kind, yet simultaneously marketing those assets around to third parties behind the scenes?
I really hope de Jockstrap emails me with this garbage soon, as I very much forward to giving that︀ weasel a piece of my mind.
Also, isn’t it quite telling that he is sending these emails out on a Saturday? Looks like the team at Qenta may working overtime to pressure as many vulnerable customers as they can into accepting early haircuts before their golden opportunity closes. 😉
Funny: opt-ins still let Mr. Schiff chase their money.
Same guy who engineered the Qenta 2022 deal (signed by Brent × Schiff).
Never admits. Always excuses.
Posts 10×/day about being “selfless” and “free legal help.”
Defends Qenta for 3 years, smears the receiver, then expects favors = delusional.
Says he’s owed +$50M and pushes a lawsuit that looks doomed (no stated claim, immunity): https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/55723734/Schiff_v_Internal_Revenue_Services_et_a just as Schiff already lost the Qenta lawsuit.
Don’t be shocked if opt-ins get nothing or if best case is Sep ’22 values, far off. Plenty of ways the Qenta money/assets can be slowly siphoned.
Same guy who engineered the Qenta 2022 deal (signed by Brent × Schiff).
Never admits. Always excuses.
Posts 10×/day about being “selfless” and “free legal help.”
Defends Qenta for 3 years, smears the receiver, then expects favors = delusional.
Says he’s owed +$50M and pushes a lawsuit that looks doomed (no stated claim, immunity): https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/55723734/Schiff_v_Internal_Revenue_Services_et_a just as Schiff already lost the Qenta lawsuit.
Don’t be shocked if opt-ins get nothing or if best case is Sep ’22 values, far off. Plenty of ways the Qenta money/assets can be slowly siphoned.
I did't lose the lawsuit. The judge ruiled I had no standing to get the TRO. The Receiver needed to file the action. but he refused. So rather than continue trying︀ to get Qenta to return the money to the bank under the Receiver, I thought︁ a better approach was to get Qenta to return the money directly to customers though︂ an excrow account established by the customer's lawyer. I am covering the costs, not becuase︃ I'm legally required to, but becuase I want to. I just thing its the rigth︄ things for me do to. It would be much eaiser for me to just walk︅ away. But not only do I not want to see custoemrs lose this money, but︆ I don't want to allow Brent De Jong to walk away with tens of millions︇ of their money. Of course, with the benefit of hindsigth I regreat having done the︈ deal with Qetna. I wish I had just thought of giving everyone the option of︉ transferring their gold and silver to Schiff Gold back then. I wonder if OCIF would︊ have allowed that. The likely would have. I got nothing out of the deal with︋ Qetna, as everything they were supposed to pay was going to the bank to protect︌ customers.
Yes it should work. I'm getting plenty of emails. over 100 now in the lawsuit. You have radio spelled wrong. [email protected]
What a shame, it would have been a much better option. Hopefully it's not too late for that.
Are you sure customers have standing? Based on what the judge wrote, it would seem that the Receiver is the only one legally allowed to represent the bank:
"EBP is not a party to the action nor is Wigberto Lugo Mender,"
"The actual or intended arbitration before the ICC is on behalf of Schiff, individually as shareholder, and not on︀ behalf of EPB or the Trustee."
Are you sure customers have standing? Based on what the judge wrote, it would seem that the Receiver is the only one legally allowed to represent the bank:
"EBP is not a party to the action nor is Wigberto Lugo Mender,"
"The actual or intended arbitration before the ICC is on behalf of Schiff, individually as shareholder, and not on︀ behalf of EPB or the Trustee."
Yes, that was an arbitration over the breach of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement. The judge ruled that even though I signed that agreementl, and was a named party seperate from︀ the bank, with responsiblities and indemnifications, I still lacked standing to act for the bank.︁ But customers are filing their own federal lawsuit to recover their property. This is not︂ an arbittarion on behelf of the bank. The Receiver already said that the assets custodiesd︃ by Qenta no longer belong to the bank, but to the Opt-in customers. Qetna acknowlded︄ that too by pretending to allign with the Receiver in my lawsuit and refusing to︅ return the assets to the bank. The customers definatly have standing to sue Qenta in︆ Delaware federal court. They have an excellent case which I don't even think Qenta can︇ defend against. What argument could they possibly make that as custodians they are allowed to︈ keep customer's assets or cash for themselves?
As Radko, I received suddenly as well a mail from Qenta Inc. this Saturday.
Here are the email adress they put in copy : [email protected] ; [email protected]
Message received :
My answer : ("[email protected]" was︊ added to email recipients)
I would also like to address the frequent criticism︊ directed at Peter, which in my view is rather counterproductive.
I am not anyone’s fanboy︋ , I simply want my money back. There is certainly much to be debated about︌ the PAA clauses, Qenta’s start-up profile, Brent De Jong’s track record, the Receiver’s disengagement regarding︍ the Opt-in process, and OCIF’s silence.
That said, given our common interest and the current︎ circumstances, criticism, complaints, and insults are largely ineffective.
Over the past 200 pages of this️ thread, I’ve read countless emotional comments that led to no real action, apart from angry emails sent to anyone even remotely linked to this disastrous transaction. Against this backdrop, I find it encouraging that a structured group of plaintiffs may be forming, enabling constructive communication between them and ultimately a coherent lawsuit against our opponents.
For this reason, bringing the Receiver, Peter, and as many stakeholders as possible on board is absolutely essential. We don’t need to create new adversaries , we already have more than enough.
Here are the email adress they put in copy : [email protected] ; [email protected]
Message received :
My answer : ("[email protected]" was︊ added to email recipients)
I would also like to address the frequent criticism︊ directed at Peter, which in my view is rather counterproductive.
I am not anyone’s fanboy︋ , I simply want my money back. There is certainly much to be debated about︌ the PAA clauses, Qenta’s start-up profile, Brent De Jong’s track record, the Receiver’s disengagement regarding︍ the Opt-in process, and OCIF’s silence.
That said, given our common interest and the current︎ circumstances, criticism, complaints, and insults are largely ineffective.
Over the past 200 pages of this️ thread, I’ve read countless emotional comments that led to no real action, apart from angry emails sent to anyone even remotely linked to this disastrous transaction. Against this backdrop, I find it encouraging that a structured group of plaintiffs may be forming, enabling constructive communication between them and ultimately a coherent lawsuit against our opponents.
For this reason, bringing the Receiver, Peter, and as many stakeholders as possible on board is absolutely essential. We don’t need to create new adversaries , we already have more than enough.
- Status