Euro Pacific bank is a scam

[Martin Everson]

As someone from a third world country I am still not sure what people expected to happen when you bank with an offshore bank in a third world island 😕.

Live and learn and I hope everyone gets their money back.

Toggle signature
Please note my posts should not be taken as financial or tax advice. Please seek professional advice in that respect.

 

[danielboros]

Well the J5 does consist of third world islands. Except Australia for it is a continent. The rest do fit the description.

 

[Lemon]

As of 31 July, there is a new receiver Q1 report on Legal Documents | EPB Bank

 

[danielboros]

Assuming that they are able to keep liquidating at the same pace of 5 mill per quarter the process could finish as early as the first half of next year.

I guess it is progress that they are no longer pretending that they have all the money under control like they did this time last year.

 

[Pschiff]

Radko said:
I've watched the press conference a few times, and I speak Spanish, so I understand everything she said, and she lied a few times. It was insulting to say the least.

There was no reason for the press conference, it destroyed our chances of getting our money back any time soon.

She should be held accountable!
Click to expand...

What specific lies did you notice, particularly those spoken in Spanish?

My current lawsuit is just to force the IRS to turn over the documents I requested. They are not privileged as the IRS falsely claimed to prevent me from seeing them. This lawsuit does not seek damages, just information that should be publicly available. The Commissioner obviously gained personally from her action and the press conference to announce it. She won praise and support from five governments. It was a major feather in her cap.

Last edited: Aug 9, 2024

 

[SCHLOSSFINANZ]

why don't you sue the receiver for an FOI in your position as a shareholder?

 

[Pschiff]

I may do that too. As I wrote there are a lot of bad actors involved in this. But he was appointed by the Commissioner, who is also responsible for his actions. But the larger issue is there never should have been a receiver appointed in the first place. It was completely unnecessary. Plus the receiver has a natural conflict of interest to drag out the process. Had I been allowed to liquidate my own bank, as I requested, my incentive would have been to compete the process as quickly and efficiently as possible. Any money left over at the end would have gone to me. But by delaying the process, the receiver makes sure it goes to him instead.

 

[danielboros]

@Pschiff based on the amount of money not under the control of the receiver can you guess which bank is witholding our funds ( Legal Documents | EPB Bank )?

 

[Pschiff]

As far as I know the only funds being withheld are those on deposit with Novo Bank.

 

[Radko]

Pschiff said:
What specific lies did you notice, particularly those spoken in Spanish?

My current lawsuit is just to force the IRS to turn over the documents I requested. They are not privileged as the IRS falsely claimed to prevent me from seeing them. This lawsuit does not seek damages, just information that should be publicly available. The Commissioner obviously gained personally from her action and the press conference to announce it. She won praise and support from five governments. It was a major feather in her cap.
Click to expand...

I need to watch the press conference again to refresh my memory, but I do remember the Commissioner saying over and over that the bank was "insolvente" and that she was closing the bank to protect the customers.
When the press conference came out, I translated all the Spanish part into English for Vincent.

The main impression from the press conference was that the bank was basically broke, so they took action.

Then the IRS agent started with his 5 minutes of fame, I thought it was ridiculous to be honest. At some point I remember him saying "some of these investigations take time and may not lead to anything".

The one thing that it's hard to understand is the fact that the Commissioner told you not to add more capital to the bank, but then she closed the bank by alleging that the bank was insolvent.

 

[Pschiff]

The insolvent stuff was not true. But it was a fact that the bank did not have enough regulatory capital. That was to be solved by the sale to Qetna, which was basically nullified by the C&D issued the day of the press conference. I did offer to add the $7 million myself while OCIF completed its due diligence on the buyer, but the Commissioner told me that was not necessary. Though there were 7 other witnesses in the room when she told me that, there was nothing in writing to confirm it. So she used the lack of capital as an excuse to justify her action, that was completely unnecessary. I have no idea what she said in Spanish So if you noticed anything other than the solvency issue let me know. She also accused the bank of having a long history of non-compliance. That was false. The bank made a stong effort to comply without everything OCIF asked it do to. Again the Commissioner was trying to make the bank look bad for the J5 and the media.

 

[danielboros]

Radko said:
The one thing that it's hard to understand is the fact that the Commissioner told you not to add more capital to the bank, but then she closed the bank by alleging that the bank was insolvent.
Click to expand...

Why is this hard to understand? Someone somewhere made the decision to kill this and several other banks in Puerto Rico (and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines). Why do you think it was called Operation Atlantis? What do you think happened to Atlantis? The end result was clear from the get go.

 

[Pschiff]

At the time the Commissioner told me not to add the $7 million in capital she had every intention of approving the sale to Qenta. It's just that the IRS, working on behalf of the J5, got her to change her mind and close the bank instead, announcing the action with a press conference. So she was able to use the low capital as an excuse to shut down the bank, even though it was only low because she told me not to put it in. On another note, after she told me I didn't need to put in more capital, I put in close to $2 million anyway to cover operating losses. That maintained the bank's capital at the level it was when we met. So I was personally making sure all depositors where protected. That protection went away after she unnecessarily put the bank into receivership.

 

[SCHLOSSFINANZ]

Pschiff said:
I may do that too. As I wrote there are a lot of bad actors involved in this. But he was appointed by the Commissioner, who is also responsible for his actions. But the larger issue is there never should have been a receiver appointed in the first place. It was completely unnecessary. Plus the receiver has a natural conflict of interest to drag out the process. Had I been allowed to liquidate my own bank, as I requested, my incentive would have been to compete the process as quickly and efficiently as possible. Any money left over at the end would have gone to me. But by delaying the process, the receiver makes sure it goes to him instead.
Click to expand...

Ok. But why do you repeat the same and same story over again? Sueing receiver would help depositors more than going after IRS. Because IF you know what receiver actually did you could pressure him and IF you have proof he is not fit and proper to be a receiver for EPB that would give you ammunition against OCIF

 

[Pschiff]

Those allegations would likely be part of the suit against OCIF, which includes the conspiracy with the IRS and J5, which are the real source of the problem. Of course the Australian media and to a lesser extent the NY Times are also culpable. Suing the Receiver without also suing OCIF makes no sense. Of course bank customers are also free to sue the Receiver.

 

[danielboros]

Suing the receiver would deplete our own accounts. Unlike us they are free to use our reserves. Also we don't really have any proof that the receiver had done anything wrong.

Suing the J5 could possibly lead to legislation that could prevent tax agencies from operating as a criminal cartel.

 

[Lemon]

Pschiff said:
As far as I know the only funds being withheld are those on deposit with Novo Bank.
Click to expand...

And what is the reason it is still held by NOVO and what can be done to release them?

 

[Pschiff]

I still don't understand that fully. Part of it was that during the 8-month freeze, the bank lost the ability to send out wires the way it use to. So they needed to find a solution. But that should not have taken this long to implement. The only information I get is that they are working on it.

 

[Lemon]

Pschiff said:
I still don't understand that fully. Part of it was that during the 8-month freeze, the bank lost the ability to send out wires the way it use to. So they needed to find a solution. But that should not have taken this long to implement. The only information I get is that they are working on it.
Click to expand...

hmmm, that sounds strange..... "lost the ability to send out wires" ??? can a bank not always send out wires? if you cannot send out wires you cannot do the most basic of banking business functions, right? .... how long time ago did they "loose" the ability ? ..... should NOVO not get some attention?

 

[Pschiff]

Yes, there were changes made to Swift that the bank did not keep up with. Plus another contract with a company that helped with wires expired. Had the Portugese government not frozen the Novo account, all funds would have been returned in Q4 of 2022. The only reason the account was frozen was inaccurate reports in the media incorrectly linking the closure of the bank to the J5 investigation for money laundering and tax evasion. But that was the precise false impress the IRS and J5 had hoped to convey So it was by design. For some reason the OCIF Commissioner decided to sacrifice the bank to enable that fraud.