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.
You are welcome. I wanted to tell other victims as soon as I finished the call and hopefully make customers feel a bit more secure. The lawyer said I could pass it on to other victims provided I didn't mention his law firm.
The lawyer I spoke to was first class. He actually started his career in︀ OCIF and so he knows OCIF and the Commissioner very well. I think he agreed︁ to the call just to reassure me. He wasn't touting for business.
I got the︂ impression that OCIF might not be using Novo Bank for the wire transfers but the︃ lawyer wasn't sure about the mechanics. We will have to wait for the OCIF announcement.︄
Obviously Lugo Mender is a competitor firm and Puerto Rico is a small place. So︅ everyone knows each other. So he doesn't want me mentioning his law firm. But if︆ things don't work out as planned then I will definitely use them.
I did ask︇ him if I could divulge the information to other victims because I told him that︈ people were really anxious after all this time.
He did mention an alternative arrangement for︉ transfer which I presume was the California bank idea. Apparently that arrangement was an old︊ idea that would need re-establishing. Hopefully OCIF isn't thinking of using that.
I agree it's︋ all words right now and the only thing that counts is when the wire transfer︌ hits your account. I have been feeling pretty miserable about the situation for the last︍ few weeks but I feel more encouraged today. I don't think there is a conspiracy︎ to defraud us. Just a Receiver that is very poor at communicating and has got️ himself in a muddle.
Oh yes he also said the remuneration situation of Lugo Mender charging monthly was not normal. The usual arrangement is to bill for hours with explanation for the billing.
The lawyer I spoke to was first class. He actually started his career in︀ OCIF and so he knows OCIF and the Commissioner very well. I think he agreed︁ to the call just to reassure me. He wasn't touting for business.
I got the︂ impression that OCIF might not be using Novo Bank for the wire transfers but the︃ lawyer wasn't sure about the mechanics. We will have to wait for the OCIF announcement.︄
Obviously Lugo Mender is a competitor firm and Puerto Rico is a small place. So︅ everyone knows each other. So he doesn't want me mentioning his law firm. But if︆ things don't work out as planned then I will definitely use them.
I did ask︇ him if I could divulge the information to other victims because I told him that︈ people were really anxious after all this time.
He did mention an alternative arrangement for︉ transfer which I presume was the California bank idea. Apparently that arrangement was an old︊ idea that would need re-establishing. Hopefully OCIF isn't thinking of using that.
I agree it's︋ all words right now and the only thing that counts is when the wire transfer︌ hits your account. I have been feeling pretty miserable about the situation for the last︍ few weeks but I feel more encouraged today. I don't think there is a conspiracy︎ to defraud us. Just a Receiver that is very poor at communicating and has got️ himself in a muddle.
Oh yes he also said the remuneration situation of Lugo Mender charging monthly was not normal. The usual arrangement is to bill for hours with explanation for the billing.
That is not true. I am not setting the bank up for︇ anything, as I have no control whatsoever over this process. When the liquidation first stated︈ I expected that around $1 million would be left over for me at the end.︉ At this point I don't expect to receive anything.
The receiver does bill by the hour. He just invoices monthly. Those monthly invoices are about︉ $10K. He does not just bill a flat $10K per month.
The receiver does bill by the hour. He just invoices monthly. Those monthly invoices are about︉ $10K. He does not just bill a flat $10K per month.
Call me naive but I think Peter wants the best outcome for customers.
He is a victim too of OCIF's decision to go through a totally unnecessary liquidation. The closure by OCIF was a political action. Unfortunately we all have to accept the reality of the situation right now.
Without Peter, customers would have been totally in the dark for the last few months but we have to accept that Peter isn't in charge of the liquidation process and the Receiver isn't telling him everything either.
He is a victim too of OCIF's decision to go through a totally unnecessary liquidation. The closure by OCIF was a political action. Unfortunately we all have to accept the reality of the situation right now.
Without Peter, customers would have been totally in the dark for the last few months but we have to accept that Peter isn't in charge of the liquidation process and the Receiver isn't telling him everything either.
Thanks, this is helpful to me too.
The one thing this lawyer said that I disagree with is that I think the customers︇ DO have a valid claim against OCIF. The liquidation though a receiver, and the press︈ conference OCIF held, were clearly not in the best interest of customers. The Commissioner had︉ two vastly superior alternatives to safeguard customers. The best one was to allow the sale︊ to Qenta. The other was to allow a voluntary liquidation without a receiver and without︋ holding an unnecessary, politically-motivated press conference about irrelevent allegations of money laundering and tax evasion,︌ that resulted in the Novo freeze.
I also think there is a valid claim against︍ the receiver, but that could also be on OCIF for having appointed a receiver with︎ zero banking experience to run the unnecessary liquidation of a bank.
This lawyer just likely️ doesn't have enough background facts or information to realize the validity of these claims. I can be helpful in that respect if anyone wants to go in that direction.
The one thing this lawyer said that I disagree with is that I think the customers︇ DO have a valid claim against OCIF. The liquidation though a receiver, and the press︈ conference OCIF held, were clearly not in the best interest of customers. The Commissioner had︉ two vastly superior alternatives to safeguard customers. The best one was to allow the sale︊ to Qenta. The other was to allow a voluntary liquidation without a receiver and without︋ holding an unnecessary, politically-motivated press conference about irrelevent allegations of money laundering and tax evasion,︌ that resulted in the Novo freeze.
I also think there is a valid claim against︍ the receiver, but that could also be on OCIF for having appointed a receiver with︎ zero banking experience to run the unnecessary liquidation of a bank.
This lawyer just likely️ doesn't have enough background facts or information to realize the validity of these claims. I can be helpful in that respect if anyone wants to go in that direction.
The lawyer I spoke to︄ today has a vested interest. He wants more assignments from OCIF in the future, so︅ I guess he's going to say there isn't a case to claim.
He was an︆ experienced guy so he probably knows a claim against the Receiver or OCIF wouldn't get︇ through a Puerto Rican court.
Customers just have to accept reality and hope that OCIF︈ can find a practical way to refund customers and we can all move on with︉ our lives. I don't want to sue anyone. I just want my money back and︊ live the few years left of my life in peace.
He was an︆ experienced guy so he probably knows a claim against the Receiver or OCIF wouldn't get︇ through a Puerto Rican court.
Customers just have to accept reality and hope that OCIF︈ can find a practical way to refund customers and we can all move on with︉ our lives. I don't want to sue anyone. I just want my money back and︊ live the few years left of my life in peace.
It's difficult to find anyone in Puerto Rico willing to challenge the government. Everyone wants to work with the government, as they have so much money to pay out, or stay in their good graces to peddle their influence to regulated companies, like IFEs. Even︀ the media is reluctant to report negatively on the government, as the government is the︁ biggest advertiser in Puerto Rico. No one wants to piss off their biggest customer.
The receiver billed the bank over $17K for the month of May. I think that is excessive, especially since I think his services actually subtracted value. That is particularly true with the respect to the $500 Currency Matters Receivable he blew. His failure to perform a very simple task , that would have taken less than one hour to complete, caused the bank to lose out on a $500K payment it otherwise would have received.
Yes, but its hard to tell what exactly was done during the billable time, or if any of the "work" billed for was productive or necessary. The receiver really doesn't answer to anyone, so the conflicts of interest are huge. That is why I tired my best to prevent the bank from being put into receivership in the first place. But the OCIF Commissioner wouldn't budge. Not only did she refuse to allow Qenta︀ to buy the bank and put in more capital, but she refused to allow me︁ to put in extra capital to better protect customers , then "voluntarily" liquidate the bank︂ myself without a receiver.
So given that the Receiver continues to︁ bill but we see no evidence or have no news of progress what do you︂ suggest customers do ?
Should we hire the lawyer I spoke to last week so︃ that we get more information and use the lawyer as oversight of the Receiver and︄ OCIF - if that is possible for a lawyer to do ?
The lawyer I︅ spoke to last week said it would take OCIF 2 to 3 weeks to come︆ out with an announcement. OCIF had already been working on it for 2 weeks by︇ last Wednesday. So 3 weeks is up tomorrow.
Should we hire the lawyer I spoke to last week so︃ that we get more information and use the lawyer as oversight of the Receiver and︄ OCIF - if that is possible for a lawyer to do ?
The lawyer I︅ spoke to last week said it would take OCIF 2 to 3 weeks to come︆ out with an announcement. OCIF had already been working on it for 2 weeks by︇ last Wednesday. So 3 weeks is up tomorrow.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.