The issue with the silver is actually simple. The Receiver thinks the silver is frozen since he believes he lacks the authority to distribute it. So he wants OFIC to modify the liquidation plan to give him that authority. But there is no need to do that as he doesn't have to distribute any silver. Silver bullion has already offered to do that. So all he has to do is tell Silver bullion the same thing he told Qenta and customers. The difference is that while Qenta ignored his instructions, Silver Bullion will follow them!
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.
Its not just Qenta who︀ are ignoring customers. The receiver is also ignoring customers. He does not reply to emails︁ either!
Further to this point - on July 31st the receiver publicly stated that;
"The Trustee emphatically rejects any such proposal as the assets in question are customer-owned assets. Consequently, the disposition of these assets must be subject to individual negotiation and direction from the respective account holders."
https://epbprliquidation.com/wp-con...tomers-of-Euro-Pacific-International-Bank.pdf
This statement includes the silver ("assets in question")- Singapore Bullion MUST be told about this PUBLIC statement from the receiver.
Sing Bull are free to distribute to customers IMMEDIATLEY.
"The Trustee emphatically rejects any such proposal as the assets in question are customer-owned assets. Consequently, the disposition of these assets must be subject to individual negotiation and direction from the respective account holders."
https://epbprliquidation.com/wp-con...tomers-of-Euro-Pacific-International-Bank.pdf
This statement includes the silver ("assets in question")- Singapore Bullion MUST be told about this PUBLIC statement from the receiver.
Sing Bull are free to distribute to customers IMMEDIATLEY.
Exactly!! Why doesn't︍ the receiver︀ just tell Sing Bull to 'return the assets to the customers' like he︁ did with︁ Gold and mute funnds at Qenta.... Interesting that he's taking a different tack︉ here... Maybe︂ suggesting Sing Bull asks the receiver if it can return the silver to the customers,︃ just like he asked Qenta with the gold and mutes.., is a good︃ plan. How︄ can the receiver say no??!!
[PLS NOTE THAT IN THE POST ABOVE IT APPEARS THAT︅ PETER WROTE THIS - HE DID NOT. IT WAS ME AND A TECHNICAL ERROR -︆ APOLOGIES.
[PLS NOTE THAT IN THE POST ABOVE IT APPEARS THAT︅ PETER WROTE THIS - HE DID NOT. IT WAS ME AND A TECHNICAL ERROR -︆ APOLOGIES.
to me it looks︀ as though Qenta and receiver in cahoots if he is not working with Singapore Bullion︁ in the same way, even though he stated on the web site. Did the receiver︂ tell SIngapore Bullion the assets are frozen? Something smells fishy around here
No the Reeiver thinks they are forzen as he belives he lacks the authoirty to discutrubte them as he belives the liquidation plan set those assets outside of the bank's estate. He is wrong, but as long as that's what he belives, all he need to do is inform Silver Bullion. Instead he want︀ to get OCIF to modify the liquidation plan, to give him the authority to distrubute︁ the silver. The problem with that is it will take him a long time. Silver︂ Bullion can do it quickly working with Schiff Gold.
He is wrong, as you say, but︀ if that's his position, then we work with that. And in that scenario Sing Bull︁ can distribute the silver to Schiffgold immediately.
However, we'll be waiting a long time for︂ the receiver to say this directly to Singapore Bullion.
So instead of waiting for that︃ to happen, which it won't - we have a much better chance of getting Sing︄ Bull to ask the receiver to clarify some points. Like the fact that by the︅ words of the receiver themselves, they lack any authority to block a distribution of silver︆ back to the clients by Sing Bull.
However, we'll be waiting a long time for︂ the receiver to say this directly to Singapore Bullion.
So instead of waiting for that︃ to happen, which it won't - we have a much better chance of getting Sing︄ Bull to ask the receiver to clarify some points. Like the fact that by the︅ words of the receiver themselves, they lack any authority to block a distribution of silver︆ back to the clients by Sing Bull.
I'm having my lawsyer work on this.
I already made the changes. The website will not be gone. This laywer is nuts. He also emailed my lawyer that in recent days I have looked at him in a threatening manner, and that he fears for his personal saftetry and the saftey of his famliy. This dispite the fact that I have no idea︀ who he is or what he looks like. I have never looked at anyone in︁ a threatening manner, so there is no way I looked at him that why, espically︂ since I had no way of knowing who he was. He claimed he lives in︃ my community, but I believe that is also a lie.
I already made the changes. The website will not be gone. This laywer is nuts. He also emailed my lawyer that in recent days I have looked at him in a threatening manner, and that he fears for his personal saftetry and the saftey of his famliy. This dispite the fact that I have no idea︀ who he is or what he looks like. I have never looked at anyone in︁ a threatening manner, so there is no way I looked at him that why, espically︂ since I had no way of knowing who he was. He claimed he lives in︃ my community, but I believe that is also a lie.
yes, the language he objected to has been on the website for over three years. But I already removed it, and made it more clear that the bank is out of business. The website is there for informational purposes only. But it's telling that OCIF doesn't care about going after Brent De Jong of Qenta, or the Receiver, but just me. I am the only one being trenatened with︀ fines or criminal prosecution for having "misleading' but meaningless boilerplate content on the bank's website.︁
These points only concern silver.
On 21st July the receiver publicly stated the following;
“The Trustee emphatically rejects any such proposal”
the proposal in question was that Qenta liquidate (sell) Silver and send those funds back to the receiver.
After the receiver rejected Qentas proposal because;
“the assets in question are customer-owned assets”
The receiver then states that the customer owned silver “MUST” be subject to individual customer negotiations;
“the disposition of these assets must be subject to individual negotiation and direction from the respective account holders”
This is explicitly stating that the owners of the silver must negotiate directly with the custodian of the silver (Singapore Bullion) to get it back. Implying that the receiver has NOTHING to do︀ with this process.
(Maybe it would be worth while for silver customers to direct Singapore︁ bullion to return their silver via Schiffgold - it get’s it on the record with︂ Singapore Bullion then.)
The receiver goes onto to emphasise that it is the customer NOT︃ the receiver who can instruct the silver be moved;
“cannot liquidate or otherwise dispose of︄ such assets except strictly in accordance with instructions from the underlying customers”
“Qenta is required︅ to hold and manage all precious metals and securities in their received form, pending express︆ instructions from the respective customers”
The receiver then makes their position very clear about the︇ silver. It is the customer, and the customer alone (not the receiver) who can order︈ the silver transferred;
“The trustee’s position is clear: these assets should not be sold or︉ transferred without each customer’s written consent”
The receiver in then suggests that people contact the︊ custodian of the silver directly;
“If you had precious metals or securities with EPB and︋ believe they may now be held by Qenta, you should contact Qenta directly regarding your︌ options.”
Then on August 26th the receiver again reaffirms the position of the 21st July.︍
The receiver states that their authority is ‘limited’ to paying only claims that are in︎ the OCFI liquidation plan (which does NOT include silver);
“The undersigned mandate and authority are️ limited to paying claims and overseeing the orderly winding down of the bank affairs consistent with the OCIF approved liquidation plan”
The receiver then makes it VERY clear that the original order is in full effect;
“today there is no change approved or adopted that would modify the specific Orders still in full force and effect”
This is reaffirming the statement of July 21st where by the customers “MUST” enter into direct negotiations to get their silver back.
The receiver then says they have NO control over the distribution of the silver;
“Neither the Trustee nor the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of︀ Puerto Rico have any participation in the administration or control of these assets”
And that︁ the “administration AND obligations” of the silver are nothing to do with the receiver’
“ The management and administration of said assets and obligations to customers were entrusted to the︂ acquiring entity upon the agreement executed by the stockholder.”
The receiver then admits, that without︃ changing the Liquidation plan they have no power of the distribution of the Silver -︄ and that it is Singapore Bullion that is restricting access NOT the receiver;
“no way︅ means the trustee can direct or remit any customer any inventory stored with this company︆ without modifying the existing Liquidation Order.”
The receiver then finishes up by washing his hands︇ of ANY involvement OR responsibility in getting the silver back;
“he unfounded statements by the︈ stockholder suggesting that the undersigned is now called to resolve the issues caused by the︉ sale transaction he, Peter Schiff, and not the Trustee agreed to, is unwarranted.”
Summary:
It is clear that LEGALLY and in the public statements of the receiver it is up︊ to the customer to demand their silver back.
It would be VERY useful for Singapore︋ bullion be made aware of all of the above.
I again also VERY strongly recommend︌ that customer go directly to Singapore bullion and ask their silver be transferred to Schiffgold︍ immediately. This meets the receivers obligations on the part of the customers to get there︎ own silver back.
Hope this help Peter - and that you can use the above️ with your lawyers to get Singapore bullion to ask/demand the right questions of the receiver.
Pleases consider asking silver customers to ask directly to have there silver back. It puts on the record the will of the customers as opposed to what the receiver might CLAIM is the will of the customers.
On 21st July the receiver publicly stated the following;
“The Trustee emphatically rejects any such proposal”
the proposal in question was that Qenta liquidate (sell) Silver and send those funds back to the receiver.
After the receiver rejected Qentas proposal because;
“the assets in question are customer-owned assets”
The receiver then states that the customer owned silver “MUST” be subject to individual customer negotiations;
“the disposition of these assets must be subject to individual negotiation and direction from the respective account holders”
This is explicitly stating that the owners of the silver must negotiate directly with the custodian of the silver (Singapore Bullion) to get it back. Implying that the receiver has NOTHING to do︀ with this process.
(Maybe it would be worth while for silver customers to direct Singapore︁ bullion to return their silver via Schiffgold - it get’s it on the record with︂ Singapore Bullion then.)
The receiver goes onto to emphasise that it is the customer NOT︃ the receiver who can instruct the silver be moved;
“cannot liquidate or otherwise dispose of︄ such assets except strictly in accordance with instructions from the underlying customers”
“Qenta is required︅ to hold and manage all precious metals and securities in their received form, pending express︆ instructions from the respective customers”
The receiver then makes their position very clear about the︇ silver. It is the customer, and the customer alone (not the receiver) who can order︈ the silver transferred;
“The trustee’s position is clear: these assets should not be sold or︉ transferred without each customer’s written consent”
The receiver in then suggests that people contact the︊ custodian of the silver directly;
“If you had precious metals or securities with EPB and︋ believe they may now be held by Qenta, you should contact Qenta directly regarding your︌ options.”
Then on August 26th the receiver again reaffirms the position of the 21st July.︍
The receiver states that their authority is ‘limited’ to paying only claims that are in︎ the OCFI liquidation plan (which does NOT include silver);
“The undersigned mandate and authority are️ limited to paying claims and overseeing the orderly winding down of the bank affairs consistent with the OCIF approved liquidation plan”
The receiver then makes it VERY clear that the original order is in full effect;
“today there is no change approved or adopted that would modify the specific Orders still in full force and effect”
This is reaffirming the statement of July 21st where by the customers “MUST” enter into direct negotiations to get their silver back.
The receiver then says they have NO control over the distribution of the silver;
“Neither the Trustee nor the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of︀ Puerto Rico have any participation in the administration or control of these assets”
And that︁ the “administration AND obligations” of the silver are nothing to do with the receiver’
“ The management and administration of said assets and obligations to customers were entrusted to the︂ acquiring entity upon the agreement executed by the stockholder.”
The receiver then admits, that without︃ changing the Liquidation plan they have no power of the distribution of the Silver -︄ and that it is Singapore Bullion that is restricting access NOT the receiver;
“no way︅ means the trustee can direct or remit any customer any inventory stored with this company︆ without modifying the existing Liquidation Order.”
The receiver then finishes up by washing his hands︇ of ANY involvement OR responsibility in getting the silver back;
“he unfounded statements by the︈ stockholder suggesting that the undersigned is now called to resolve the issues caused by the︉ sale transaction he, Peter Schiff, and not the Trustee agreed to, is unwarranted.”
Summary:
It is clear that LEGALLY and in the public statements of the receiver it is up︊ to the customer to demand their silver back.
It would be VERY useful for Singapore︋ bullion be made aware of all of the above.
I again also VERY strongly recommend︌ that customer go directly to Singapore bullion and ask their silver be transferred to Schiffgold︍ immediately. This meets the receivers obligations on the part of the customers to get there︎ own silver back.
Hope this help Peter - and that you can use the above️ with your lawyers to get Singapore bullion to ask/demand the right questions of the receiver.
Pleases consider asking silver customers to ask directly to have there silver back. It puts on the record the will of the customers as opposed to what the receiver might CLAIM is the will of the customers.
Wow - that's crazy... No offence Peter but there is no way︂ you could look at anyone in a threatening manner in those shirts you wear!
This is pure intimation... let you know they know where you socialise with the aim of︃ chilling your speech. Disgusting.
This is pure intimation... let you know they know where you socialise with the aim of︃ chilling your speech. Disgusting.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.