Euro Pacific bank is a scam

[Lemon]

I doubt⁠ that we will ever know the full story of this .... and I stopped caring⁤ long time ago.
I am not a rich person with an extravagant lifestyle but a⁣ normal person with a savings account and I just want hard-earned money returned so we⁢ can get back to life.
I feel like a prisoner held hostage in some absurd︀ show. It is embarrassing to try and explain to your family and friends why your︁ life has come to a fulll stop, now for almost 2 years!!!
I want to︂ make payments, buy a present for my children, go on a holiday and make plans︃ for my life but none of this is possible.
Meanwhile the people responsible for this︄ seems to care very little about customers lifes in their actions and words.
It is︅ by far the most absurd, unfair, and corrupt encounter I have ever had.

 

[Radko]

All that⁠ might be true Peter, but ultimately your bank was closed because it wasn't keeping the⁤ minimum working capital required by the regulator to keep the license active.

There are only⁣ two things that a bank needs to do, one is keep the money safe, and⁢ the other one is keep the license active. You don't leave your front door open︀ when you go out of your house, chances are that when you get back, someone︁ has broken into your home. By not keeping the minimum working capital required by the︂ regulator to keep the license active, left the door open for the regulator to step︃ in and close the bank, and that's exactly what has happened. Now here we are,︄ innocent customers who trusted your bank with our lives savings paying the consequences for your︅ mismanagement of the Bank.

Please stop trying to find excuses, and do something to get︆ our money back, it's been almost 2 years!!

 

[Pschiff]

That's not true. The terms of the sale to Qenta required Qenta to add $7‌ million in capital on closing. That was millions more than the minimum needed. Also the‍ bank made no loans. So didn't even need that much capital, as the rules were⁠ written for banks that make loans.

What's most important is that during the meeting we⁤ had with the Commissioner in Nov. of 2021 to propose the sale to Qenta and⁣ review the terms, which was about five months before she made the secret deal with⁢ the IRS to close the bank for insufficient capital, I offered to add the $7︀ million in extra capital myself, so the bank would have that extra capital during the︁ approval process. The Commissioner specifically told me with about eight other witnesses in the room︂ that there was no need for me to add that capital. That the bank was︃ fine operating with the capital it had while Qenta went through the required process to︄ acquire my banking license. She said it was fine for the bank to wait for︅ Qetna to add the $7 million after she approved the sale, which she said she︆ intended to do.

Despite that I still added $2 million in capital between that date︇ and the June 30th C&D to keep the capital at the level that the Commissioner︈ said was fine for the bank to operate pending the sale. At no time between︉ that Nov. 2021 meeting where she told me not to add any capital, and the︊ June 30th C&D when she closed the bank for not having enough capital, did the︋ Commissioner or anyone at OCIF every ask me or anyone at the bank to add︌ capital or give us an opportunity to add capital to avoid being shut down for︍ insufficient capital. Even after she shut down the bank for not having enough capital I︎ offered to add the extra capital if she would only allow me to liquidate the️ bank myself without having receiver do it. She refused. She insisted that the bank be‌ liquidated through her hand-picked receiver who had no banking experience, even if it meant no‍ additional capital came in. I did not want to add more capital for the receiver⁠ to squander.

Also at no point was the bank ever mismanaged. The bank did absolutely⁤ nothing wrong. That's the point. It was all made up to justify shutting down the⁣ bank so the IRS , J5, and OCIF could all pretend they stop a bank⁢ from helping customers evade tazes and launder money. You can't blame me or the bank︀ for what corrupt government officials do.

 

[jafo]

When you are on the news, can't you bring⁠ this up and shame those who are dragging their feet in Puerto Rico and maybe⁤ call the attention of the FBI? 😉

 

[Pschiff]

I talk about it all the time. I post about⁠ it so often that people complain. No one cares. Least of all the FBI. It's⁤ the U.S. government that's corrupt. Don't you get that. Also the British and Australian governments⁣ too. They all had a hand in this. So is the media. I won a⁢ defamation lawsuit and still no one cares. The media refuses to even cover the story︀ that I won. Wikipedia refuses to allow any reference to my win on any of︁ its pages.

 

[jafo]

Well, in that case, it's best everyone here just forget about this. If⁢ those governments were the ones who did the "parallel construction" then it is over. 😉

 

[MikeDem]

Nope, it's not much money for me, but I want it back. at‍ least the one left after paying receiver's girlfriends.

 

[JohnLocke]

I'm sorry to say‍ so, but I believe it will be in your dreams. The money will never come⁠ back in your pockets, sadly. If they do, I will be the first to take⁤ my words back.

 

[Lemon]

do you know⁠ about this case in details ? and the communication between the Receiver and the former⁤ EPB account holders?

 

[MikeDem]

Ok, coming from⁠ you, now I'm really worried. From previous posts from @Martin Everson I was hoping that⁤ it is kind of normal that bank liquidations take years, and some money is consumed⁣ in the process. But your opinion seems to be different. bad news :-(

 

[Martin Everson]

A normal bank liquidation takes years as I indeed⁠ said. But you need to let the receiver do his job or you may indeed⁤ never see your money as @JohnLocke says. If individual clients or parties start with legal⁣ action and appeals to any failed legal action then this can go on forever with⁢ no end in sight. This just delays everything even more to benefit of receiver. His︀ burn rate on expenses (your money) annually will just increase.

I have no idea what︁ is really going on behind the scenes of this all. But we are surely only︂ hearing one side of the story and not all of the facts.

 

[MikeDem]

Thanks to both︁ of you guys, I'll just wait and see.
On the bright side, I have discovered︂ this fantastic portal thanks to the EPB situation
Mike

 

[Sols]

The potentially good news is that, so far (and , importantly , based on limited‌ information), nothing in the EPB liquidation saga has played out significantly differently from comparable bank‍ liquidations. It could take another couple of years to finish and, IIRC, it'll still be⁠ in line with for example Choice Bank and Loyal Bank.

There is no way to⁤ speed up the process. Other than depositors, no one cares about EPB and its customers.⁣ There is nothing at stake for any regulator. The liquidator is just doing his job.⁢ No one in Puerto Rico is affected (a depositor). This is the best case scenario.︀ Because the only alternative to this is a hostile situation where the people in control︁ go from disinterested to discouraged. Don't make someone neutral your enemy.

As @Martin Everson rightly points out, throwing lawyers at this could just make the process take longer. A lawsuit︂ against the bank will delay the liquidation and might drain money from the bank to︃ pay for lawyers, court fees. A lawsuit against the liquidator will take time away from︄ winding up EPB. A lawsuit against the regulator is probably going to be thrown out︅ on the basis that the regulator hasn't done anything wrong.

 

[Pschiff]

This is not︁ a normal bank liquidation. Most banks in liquidation are insolvent. They made a lot of︂ bad loans, and they owe the depositors more than the loans are worth. So in︃ liquidation those loans must be sold before the receiver can sort out how much money︄ is actually available for depositors. But in the case the bank made no loans. The︅ bank had more cash than was owed to depositors. The bank also had no debts︆ other than what was owed to depositors. So it was likely the easiest bank liquidation︇ in history. That's why the bank never should have been put into receivership in the︈ first place. The OCIF Commissioner should have approved the sale of the bank to Qenta,︉ and I'm convinced she had intended to do just that until the IRS illegally interfered.︊ In the alternative she should have allowed me to liquidate the bank myself, as I︋ offered to do. I did not need a receiver, and would have return all deposits︌ in 30 days, so likely fall of 2022. I would have made all depositors whole︍ and there would have been a couple million left over for me. But now there︎ will be no money left over for me, and depositors will likely take a haircut️ on what they are owed. All of this was done as a PR stunt. All‌ depositors have a right to be angry, But not at the bank neither the bank‍ nor anyone working there did anything wrong. But there is plenty of blame to go⁠ around. You can blame the IRS, OCIF, the media, and the Receiver.

 

[danielboros]

Hi all, just wanted to put in my thoughts as another victim of this nonsense.‌

I think this is what happened and why:
Since EPB's customers were non US citizens‍ I would argue that it is the HMRC and similar organizations of the J5 who⁠ cared about the bank and not the IRS. This is just a favor the IRS⁤ did for the J5 so that they could investigate US citizens in the EU.

Chronologically:

1. J5 sets up reporting requirements for EPB
   
2. EPB moves to Puerto Rico to avoid reporting⁣ (according to IRS)
   
3. IRS leaks investigation via J5 news outlets to put EPB in the⁢ red
   
4. OCIF of Puerto Rico finds that EPB is in the red and suspends bank︀
   
5. OCIF forces Peter S. to liquidate the bank and gives the task to Lugo Mender︁
   
6. Lugo Mender voluntarily gives all account information to HMRC (and probably to everyone else in︂ the J5)
   
7. HMRC sends mail to the addresses of British EPB customers so that they︃ could confess their sins.
   

I think it was just about getting the information, unless Peter︄ gave it away before Lugo Mender...

Am I wrong?

 

[Pschiff]

You have some fact wrong. EPB was not moved to PR to avoid CRS reporting. That︆ was not even a consideration. Also we reported CRS for all customers who had brokerage︇ accounts in our BVI subsidiary. While the leak and false allegations of guilt caused the︈ bank to lose money, OCIF did not really suspend the bank for that reason. The︉ sale to Qetna, which the OCIF Commissioner was set to approve, would have solved the︊ bank's capital issues. But the OCIF Commissioner likely changed her mind due to pressure from︋ the IRS/J5, so they could use the closure of the bank as a PR stunt︌ to salvage a victory out of their failed investigation. I don't think the HMRC found︍ a single bank customer who used their EPB account to evade taxes. Also I think︎ the HNRC got all the info on UK customers from the IRS long before Mender️ got involved.

 

[danielboros]

I didn't say that. I said that the IRS believed that.
How does that give the J5 access to customer accounts who don't have‍ a brokerage account?
How do you know that the media frenzy had nothing to do with OCIF?⁤ Do you believe there was no collusion between OCIF and IRS?
If that is so why did Lugo Mender give︀ customer data to the HMRC? How is that action in the best interest of the︁ customers? What law requires Lugo Mender to provide this data.
How does that prove anything? How would they know before they could check the︄ books? Are you assuming that the J5 knew that they won't find anything before they︅ had the data?
Why did the HMRC︇ wait for Lugo to take over before they sent out the their threats and how︈ did the IRS obtain the data? Did you give it to them?

 

[Radko]

The bank had to give the names of the‍ account holders due to the investigation. There are no bank secrecy laws in Puerto Rico,⁠ they had no choice.

The Receiver didn't give any information to⁣ the J5, the Receiver has nothing to do with the J5, the bank had to⁢ give that information before the Receiver was appointed.

You have all the facts wrong.

 

[danielboros]

If they had no choice show me the order. So if you investigate the⁠ bank, not the account holders, the bank, you get the data of the account holders?⁤ Wouldn't you have to show negligence at least? Probable cause perhaps? If the cops investigate⁣ a house do they get to keep the house after the investigation is over? Seems⁢ like it.

The HMRC isn't allowed to get whatever data of a British citizen last︀ time I checked. Citizens don't lose their rights the moment they go abroad or do︁ an international transaction. If EPB gave up this data as you suggest then in my︂ opinion they have at least violated British GDPR laws which EPB had to comply with.︃

How do you know that? Sure it is possible that the HMRC︆ obtained the data in 2020, then waited until 2022 when the receiver took control (+︇ a month) and only sent out the emails then so that there was a higher︈ chance that the statute of limitations won't apply anymore. Could be.

You are just as much in the dark as anyone︊ else. Show me proof. Prove me wrong. I would be happy to admit that I︋ am wrong.

Sorry I meant to say "mails" not "emails"

 

[Radko]

Listen, everything was reported back in the day. Australian customers were the first︇ ones to get contacted by their tax authorities, as well as Dutch customers. HMRC just︈ took longer to get in touch with people.

The J5 was using international AML laws︉ to get the names of the account holders.
The IRS agent was leading the investigation,︊ Puerto Rico is subject to federal laws of the United States. The two primary AML︋ regulations are the Bank Secrecy Act and the Patriot Act. The Bank Secrecy Act︌ (BSA) is the first and most comprehensive federal law aimed at preventing the financing of︍ terrorists and money laundering.

At this point all that is irrelevant, let's hope we get︎ some money back at some point, all the cash is there.