Yes, but he did not write that he rejected it out of hand. That's a bd sign. He should demand the Qenta return all the assets. The worst part is that he wrote that he does not consider the $50 million in gold or silver to be part of the banks assets that he is administering under the liquidation. So he does not care what happens to the gold and silver, and recommended the︀ customer hire a lawyer take it up with Qenta. But if the receiver agree to︁ accept Qenta's terms, Qenta owes customers nothing. The bank retains the full liability for $50︂ million in gold and silver, but it will only have $25 million in cash to︃ satisfy that liability. Qenta gets to keep that other $25 million free and clear of︄ any liabilities to the bank's customers.
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.
Ive send him like 20 unanswered emailed explaining the entire thing. I have two lawyers working on this on my own. I can't take action on the part of the bank, but I will do what I can personally. But it would be much easier, less costly, and more effective, if the receiver worked with me.
It's my bank, but the receiver has complete legal control. So I can't do anything legally regarding the bank. I can only act for my personal interest. I have a personal interest if the receiver dissipates the bank's assets to unjustly enrich Qenta.
One of the frauds of this letter from Qenta to the receiver is that it lists the assets as "received/liquidated assets." But none have the received assets where liquidated. Yet Qenta values those assets as if they were liquidated on Sept 30th 2022, rather than liquidated today at the current marker prices. By what right can Qenta sell the gold and silver now, send the bank $25 million to distributed the owners of that gold and silver, and keep the other $25 million it receives for itself?
I didn't buy Qenta. Assets and liabilities to Opt-in customers were sold to Qenta. Qenta terminated that deal. From what I know know it should have been terminated almost︀ two years ago due to Qenta's breech. But I did not know they breached until︁ after they terminated the agreement. Qenta admits it still has the $80 million of assets︂ in its possession. Its not my fault if the receiver fails to recover those assets.︃ Hopefully he will. But all of my efforts to consult with him only resulted in︄ his lawyer contacting me to threaten me with litigation if I didn't stop emailing him,︅ or spreading miss-information. I asked for a clarification on what specific information that I have︆ shared was inaccurate. I am still waiting for that reply.
Qenta has possession of the gold, but the bank︌ still owns it on your behalf. But Qenta is tying to get the receiver to︍ agree to sell it and only give the bank the value it would have received︎ on Sept. 30th 2022, when gold was half its current price. I'm trying to make️ sure he does not agree, but he never replied to any of my emails to convince him not to, and then his attorney warned me to stop emailing him about this or any issues related to the bank.
Qenta has possession of the gold, but the bank︌ still owns it on your behalf. But Qenta is tying to get the receiver to︍ agree to sell it and only give the bank the value it would have received︎ on Sept. 30th 2022, when gold was half its current price. I'm trying to make️ sure he does not agree, but he never replied to any of my emails to convince him not to, and then his attorney warned me to stop emailing him about this or any issues related to the bank.
I said you brought Qenta in the deal not BOUGHT Qenta. From what you know now you never should have done that asset deal with Qenta with a bad reputation and ZERO financial service licence in a credible jurisdiction!
I didn't buy Qenta. Assets and liabilities to Opt-in customers were sold to Qenta. Qenta terminated that deal. From what I know know it should have been terminated almost︀ two years ago due to Qenta's breech. But I did not know they breached until︁ after they terminated the agreement. Qenta admits it still has the $80 million of assets︂ in its possession. Its not my fault if the receiver fails to recover those assets.︃ Hopefully he will. But all of my efforts to consult with him only resulted in︄ his lawyer contacting me to threaten me with litigation if I didn't stop emailing him,︅ or spreading miss-information. I asked for a clarification on what specific information that I have︆ shared was inaccurate. I am still waiting for that reply.
Qenta has possession of the gold, but the bank︌ still owns it on your behalf. But Qenta is tying to get the receiver to︍ agree to sell it and only give the bank the value it would have received︎ on Sept. 30th 2022, when gold was half its current price. I'm trying to make️ sure he does not agree, but he never replied to any of my emails to convince him not to, and then his attorney warned me to stop emailing him about this or any issues related to the bank.
Well the financial problems I know now about started well after I did the deal. But so long as the receiver does not︀ agree to accept Qenta's offer, or anything like it, the bank should recover all of︁ the assets that where transferred to Qenta. I am doing everything I can in my︂ personal capacity to make sure that happens. OCIF vetted Qenta and De Jung too and︃ never found any issues. All they came up with was a Syrian connection, that turned︄ out to be mistaken identity.
Qenta has possession of the gold, but the bank︌ still owns it on your behalf. But Qenta is tying to get the receiver to︍ agree to sell it and only give the bank the value it would have received︎ on Sept. 30th 2022, when gold was half its current price. I'm trying to make️ sure he does not agree, but he never replied to any of my emails to convince him not to, and then his attorney warned me to stop emailing him about this or any issues related to the bank.
Well the financial problems I know now about started well after I did the deal. But so long as the receiver does not︀ agree to accept Qenta's offer, or anything like it, the bank should recover all of︁ the assets that where transferred to Qenta. I am doing everything I can in my︂ personal capacity to make sure that happens. OCIF vetted Qenta and De Jung too and︃ never found any issues. All they came up with was a Syrian connection, that turned︄ out to be mistaken identity.
ehmmm sorry OCIF rejected Qenta to buy the bank due to connections to SANCTIONED individuals according to your own PR campaign website! Connex to Serbia and Africa as well.
The biggest fraudulent statement in︀ a letter full of fraud is Brent assuring Wigberto that he is "convinced that this︁ course of action prioritize customer interests." So he prioritizes customer's interests by stealing $40 million︂ from them. Brent claims there is an impasse, but he can easily return the $80︃ million in bank assets he is holding within one week, if not one day.
That Syrian connection turned out to be a case of mistaken identity. They only rejected the sale as a PR stunt for the J5. A former OCIF commissioner lead an investor group interested in buying the bank shortly after it went into receivership, and before we did the asset sale to Qenta. I strongly preferred that offer as I would have been paid several million dollars by the buyer and it︀ would have been seamless for customers. But the OCIF commissioner refused to even consider their︁ offer for the same reason she rejected Qenta's. She was doing a favor for the︂ IRS and the rest of the J5.
Imagine if the OCIF approved your sale of EPB to Qenta, maybe all customers will already have their assets go to zero. So despite all your screeching about OCIF rejecting the sale to Qenta, it turned out to be the right move and even if the receiver agrees to Qenta's cursed terms, at least people will get 70% to 80% of their money back, rather than 0%.
Well Qenta was required to add $8 million in capital. That would have resulted in the bank having over $10 million total. So its hard to say. They would have been regulated, with︀ independent audits every year. But after the sale to Qenta was rejected, and before we︁ did the asset sale to Qenta, a well funded investor group headed by a former︂ OCIF Commissioner tried to buy the bank. The Commissioner wouldn't even consider their offer. Plus,︃ had the IRS and ATO not helped the media frame the bank for tax evasion︄ and money laundering, I never would have had to sell the bank in the first︅ place. It would be far larger now, now customers would have lost anything, and the︆ market value of the bank would be several hundred million dollars, perhaps over a billion.︇ So let's not forget about that.
I agree, it reads like︃ a "holding response", essentially saying he's “awaiting legal advice” – not rejecting the offer out︄ of hand in a response to a single customer enquiry may also simply be a︅ formality for legal reasons. While questioning his authority over the metals holdings is concerning, I︆ think that part of his response is difficult to fully interpret without knowing the wording︇ of the forum user's original email.
However, the fact that he hasn't signed off on︈ anything or indicated his intent to reject Qenta's offer makes it even more critical for︉ more customers to explicitly object to these terms before a decision is made: this preserves︊ our rights by making objection explicit, and may bolster any future claims for damages or︋ restitution. As a trustee, the Receiver is obligated to administer and preserve trust assets for︌ the benefit of the depositors (as “beneficiaries”), rather than for any other party.
Thanks Peter︍ for making the full letter publicly available and alerting customers to this sordid development.
However, the fact that he hasn't signed off on︈ anything or indicated his intent to reject Qenta's offer makes it even more critical for︉ more customers to explicitly object to these terms before a decision is made: this preserves︊ our rights by making objection explicit, and may bolster any future claims for damages or︋ restitution. As a trustee, the Receiver is obligated to administer and preserve trust assets for︌ the benefit of the depositors (as “beneficiaries”), rather than for any other party.
Thanks Peter︍ for making the full letter publicly available and alerting customers to this sordid development.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.