Euro Pacific bank is a scam

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, and the receiver walked away from his reponsibility and︀ just outsourced it to Qenta. I tried at my own expense to do his job︁ for him, but the Federal judge wouldn't let me. He basically said if the Receiver︂ doesn't do his job, then the customers are screwed.

Technically there are no moe Opt-in︃ customers, as the deal they Opted into doesn't exist. Qenta never onboarded them as customers︄ prior to terminating the Purchase and Assumption Agreement. Customers didn't opt into a situation where︅ Qetna holds their assets in its own account and they have to pay Qetna half︆ of their deposits to get any of their money back. Aslo the smaller accounts aren't︇ even geting the "opportuity" to do that. Qetna is just keeping their money. They certainly︈ didn't opt into that. Yet the Receiver is sitting back and letting it all happen︉ claiming it's not his reposibility and the federal judge wouldn't let me do anything as︊ he ruled it is the Recievier's repsonsility, not mine. Well if I can't protect the︋ customers assets and the Reciver won't they, who will? The answer is that customers have︌ to protect themselves. Meanwhile, OCIF, which unneccedssairly creadted this situation, sits back and does nothing︍ either, leaving the Receivrer in change so it's impossible for anyone else to maximize the︎ value of assets for the bank's customers or other creditos. The OCIF Commissioner took control️ of the bank away from me and handed it to the Receiver under the pretense‌ that a Receiver was needed to protect customers. But customer's didn't need any protection until‍ she placed the bank into Receivership. Now they need protectoin from the Receiver, who has⁠ truned his back on them while preventing anyone else from protecting them.
 
Have you considered contacting OCIF, after all OCIF is responsible‍ for all the customers.
 
If we can convince OCFI of our position, they can demand‍ the Receiver do his job and recover Opt-in customer assets from Qenta.
 
Maybe instead of wasting time and effort sending emails to the Receiver and to Qenta, we‍ should send emails to OCIF, but obviously @Pschiff is in a better position to contact⁠ OCIF and beg them to help us.
A Federal lawsuit can easily take 1 to⁤ 2 years to resolve, and I'm sure not a lot of Opt-in customers are in⁣ a position to wait for potentially another 2 years to get their money back.
 
I have had my lawyer contact OCIF several times. I⁢ just now sent a letter to OCIF's attorney trying to get him to convince OCIF︀ to help.
 
I agree. Can't Peter use the 300 odd clients that⁢ agreed to partake in a suit against Qenta as a group and get a lawyer︀ to represent us and write a letter to OCIF explaining our position? I get the︁ feeling that there is animosity between OCIF and EPB? So maybe if the group has︂ separated itself OCIF might agree to act?
 
Unfortunately, contacting the Receiver (or OCIF) with a general request to change his position will‌ most likely not achieve a great deal. People do not like being told what to‍ do, or that they are wrong – and OCIF will have zero interest in taking⁠ a stance in opposition to the man they appointed. Moreover, the Receiver has already sought advice on this question from his own counsel, and will almost certainly have already⁤ met with the new commissioner as well, who will have validated his position. His position⁣ rests on at least one key assumption, which is that the assets transferred to Qenta⁢ are outside of the liquidation estate and therefore not his responsibility. Like it or not,︀ that's his position, his lawyers have advised him accordingly, and OCIF will have no basis︁ for disagreeing. (After all, the last thing the Receiver will be inclined to do is︂ assume more liability than is required of him – imagine as a worst-case hypothetical, that︃ he instructs Qenta to return customer assets to the Bank (thereby assuming liability) , only︄ to discover that Qenta has already disposed of some or all of those assets –︅ thereby exposing him to liability for the recovery or replacement of missing assets.)

He has,︆ however, shown procedural flexibility, in working together with Peter in allowing for the return of︇ the silver to the bank and redistribution to customers. So it's not as if he︈ is unwilling to do things to support customers, he is simply not willing to do︉ anything outside of the confines of what he (and those around him) believe his legal︊ and professional duties to be. Whether any of us disagree with that view makes no︋ difference.

Within these confines, there are some potential areas for wiggle room (1) not to︌ try to change the Receiver's core legal position, but to ask for him (out of︍ the goodness of his heart!) to take some limited action that does not involve him︎ taking on any extra liability – e.g. a notice that although he does not view️ these assets as falling under the liquidation estate, upon a court determination that they belong‌ to the bank, he will accept legal title and administer their distribution to customers; (2)‍ to highlight to OCIF that the framework of their liquidation order has effectively created a⁠ "vacuum" of oversight with respect to these assets, in which they are simultaneously outside of⁤ the Receiver's oversight but also unable to be marshalled by anybody else in the interests⁣ of customers; in that case, might OCIF issue some kind of limited order granting Peter⁢ the authority to act for the bank only in relation to these assets.

A collective︀ customer effort, framed from a position of "we are not challenging your core positions but︁ asking you to help us", may be more likely to be effective – but there︂ needs to be a clearly defined focus of what is being asked for.
 
Would it be possible for your lawyers‍ to contact OCIF on behalf of all the customers who have agreed to participate in⁠ the lawsuit, requesting OCIF’s assistance to help us avoid legal action? This approach could help⁤ us resolve the issue without proceeding to court and could also save you money.
 
We should try everything we can to avoid Federal court. We︂ are talking easily 2 more years in litigations.
 
How about this text that chapGPT helped me create?

-----------------------------------------------

To
Office of the Commissioner‌ of Financial Institutions (OCIF)
San Juan, Puerto Rico

Dear Sirs,

I am a former client‍ of the Euro Pacific International Bank (EPB), currently under liquidation under the supervision of the⁠ OCIF and the appointed Receiver, Wigberto Lugo Mender. In 2022, like many others, I opted-in⁤ to transfer my assets (precious metals, mutual funds, and US dollars) to Qenta. Since then⁣ I have had no access to my funds and no completion of the promised onboarding⁢ process.

Recently, Qenta has contacted clients by e-mail, offering a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) as a︀ condition for a buyback proposal. Moreover, Qenta openly seeks to return only the September 2022︁ market value, while retaining all subsequent appreciation and deducting additional costs of about US$ 5︂ million. In practice, this would result in an unjust partial return, with Qenta benefitting from︃ the market gains that belong to clients.

Although the Receiver has rejected this unilateral proposal︄ and instructed that assets be returned directly to clients, no effective measures have been taken︅ to enforce this. This omission leaves clients in a state of financial and legal insecurity,︆ without real access to their rights.

I respectfully request that the OCIF urgently clarify Qenta’s︇ role, investigate the legality of its practices, evaluate the Receiver’s omissions, and indicate the appropriate︈ complaint channels for clients to protect their rights.

Sincerely,
 
Your points are well taken, and they describe the dilemma accurately.︂ But the Receiver has not yet indicated that he will follow the instructions of the︃ customers with respect to their silver. He told my lawyer that if I was able︄ to recover the precious metals, he would work with me on distributing them to customers.︅ But now that he actually has that control,and over 100 customers have already emailed him︆ written instructions to transfer their silver to Schiff Gold,he has not confirmed to any customer︇ or to me that he will follow those instructions.

I have pointed out the hypocrisy︈ of his claiming that all the precious metals are outside of the bank's estate that︉ he is liquidating, and that they remain the separate property of customers, while at the︊ same time telling Qenta to follow customers’ instructions regarding their gold, yet refusing to follow︋ the same customers’ instructions on their silver.

I am hoping he decides to allow the︌ transfers. Schiff Gold can onboard everyone and restore full access to all customers in just︍ a couple of weeks once he offically agrees to allow the transfers. It's very easy︎ as all Silver Bullion has to do is jounral the ownership of the silver from️ the bank to Schiff Gold.
 
The cash, what Qenta holds now will not be part of liquidation also Qenta knows‌ that anyone who has less than 100k$ will not have a lawsuit against to them.‍
 
Why should people with less than 100k$ not join the⁠ lawsuit that with hundreds of others to get back their assets from Qenta?
 
The federal court in US is very expensive one including the cost of lawyers.

Of course 100 people might make the cost reasonable for each one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

JohnnyDoe.is is an uncensored discussion forum
focused on free speech,
independent thinking, and controversial ideas.
Everyone is responsible for their own words.

Quick Navigation

User Menu