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.
Not that bad if they decide to update us more frequently. But a call with questions and answers would have been better.
At least they feel our frustration. But would be better if they could reply to our question because so far they haven't told us what is going on. They know more than they say.
I get very little information. I really gave up trying to help over a year ago when it became obvious I︀ was wasting my time. Initially I expected to at least get a million or two︁ back from the $10 million in capital I put up. I no longer expect tot︂ see a penny. I just hope customers get their money eventually. But I have no︃ authority at all to speed up the process.
The receiver is making too much money︌ off of this to want it to end. That's my opinion. So you need to︍ bring the pressure on OCIF. There is not much I cab do personally, as my︎ hands are tied legally due to the settlement. I had hoped that settlement would have️ at least expedited the return of customer funds. That's one of the main reasons I agreed to it. But the Novo situation same out of left field and screwed that up. It turned out to be a huge windfall for the receiver.
The better argument is︂ that a receiver never should have been appointed. The better alternative was to allow Qenta︃ to buy the bank. The next best alternative was to allow another buyer. There were︄ other qualified buyers who stepped up. Third best was to allow me to liquidate the︅ bank myself without a receiver. I offered to do the job myself for free, and︆ would have personally guaranteed every customer would have been made whole, even if I had︇ to use my own funds to do it. But that would not have been necessary︈ as there was more than enough money available to pay all customers in full, even︉ without the Currency Matters money the receiver blew.
https://ricanmagazine.com/politics/...eiras-Alleged-Misconduct-and-Its-Consequences
The receiver is making too much money︌ off of this to want it to end. That's my opinion. So you need to︍ bring the pressure on OCIF. There is not much I cab do personally, as my︎ hands are tied legally due to the settlement. I had hoped that settlement would have️ at least expedited the return of customer funds. That's one of the main reasons I agreed to it. But the Novo situation same out of left field and screwed that up. It turned out to be a huge windfall for the receiver.
The better argument is︂ that a receiver never should have been appointed. The better alternative was to allow Qenta︃ to buy the bank. The next best alternative was to allow another buyer. There were︄ other qualified buyers who stepped up. Third best was to allow me to liquidate the︅ bank myself without a receiver. I offered to do the job myself for free, and︆ would have personally guaranteed every customer would have been made whole, even if I had︇ to use my own funds to do it. But that would not have been necessary︈ as there was more than enough money available to pay all customers in full, even︉ without the Currency Matters money the receiver blew.
https://ricanmagazine.com/politics/...eiras-Alleged-Misconduct-and-Its-Consequences
Another update no-update on the website, for opt-ins I guess.
Do you guys think opt-outs may be refunded earlier or all the same mess for now?
I decided for opt-in long time ago, for no particular reason, now I'm thinking opt out was better, not sure.
Thanks all
Mike
Do you guys think opt-outs may be refunded earlier or all the same mess for now?
I decided for opt-in long time ago, for no particular reason, now I'm thinking opt out was better, not sure.
Thanks all
Mike
Last year when the Receiver published the liquidation plan, opt-in customers were going to get the funds sooner than opt-out customers.
I hope when our funds get transferred to Qenta we won't have any problems getting the money out of Qenta. I would be surprised if Qenta let's us transfer the︀ funds without hesitation, even though that's what we were told, and that's why I opted-in.︁
Right now all that we know is that the funds are stuck at Novo Bank,︂ who knows what the problem is.
I hope when our funds get transferred to Qenta we won't have any problems getting the money out of Qenta. I would be surprised if Qenta let's us transfer the︀ funds without hesitation, even though that's what we were told, and that's why I opted-in.︁
Right now all that we know is that the funds are stuck at Novo Bank,︂ who knows what the problem is.
The problem with Novo started with the OCIF's commissioner's decision to hold a press conferencing giving the IRS and J5 an opportunity to falsely imply the bank was guilty of facilitating tax evasion and money laundering, even though its own two-year extensive investigation exonerate the bank of both crimes. Following the press conference the J5 issued a press release, again falsely implying the bank was shut down as a result of the money laundering and tax evasion originally leaked to and reported by the Australian media and then the N.Y. Times. Those outlets then wrote deceptive articles based on the misleading press release, again implying︀ the bank was shut down for tax evasion and money laundering. That allowed Novo bank︁ to alert the Portugese government of our attempt to return money to customers as being︂ suspicious. So the Portugese government froze the bank's account at Novo for 8 months supposedly︃ to conduct its own money laundering and tax evasion investigation. By the time the account︄ was unfrozen, changes to swift and other issues prevented the bank from initiating the wire︅ requests agains, and Novo refused to act on the original requests the bank submitted prior︆ to and during the freeze. So far the receiver has been unable to get the︇ funds released. My guess is that he is not really motivated to do so, as︈ the longer the funds are frozen, the more money he makes.
But can the Receiver do as he pleases? Can he drag this on for years and years without anyone holding him accountable?
At the same time, it's very suspicious that it's been approximately one year since the account was unfrozen and here we are, still waiting. You would think that one year has given the Receiver plenty of time to comply with Novo's demand︀ in order to allow the release of the funds.
At the same time, it's very suspicious that it's been approximately one year since the account was unfrozen and here we are, still waiting. You would think that one year has given the Receiver plenty of time to comply with Novo's demand︀ in order to allow the release of the funds.
Novo has been earning interest on the money, so has no reason to make it easy for the funds to be returned either.
Also, to clarify if you recall the bank was unnecessarily placed into receivership on June 30th 2022. The reason given was that the bank was "critically insolvent" and customers needed the protection of a trustee. That turned out not to be true, as one of the first things the receiver did was confirm the bank was completely solvent, and had enough cash and cash equivalents on hand to make all depositors and other creditors whole. So I believe the real reason for this action was to help the IRS, J5, and the media︀ pretend the bank was shut down for money laundering and tax evasion. The media company︁ and reporters in Australia unsuccessful tied to use the shut down of the bank as︂ evidence in its "truth" defense to my winning defamation lawsuit, which the judge rightly rejected.︃
About a month after the bank went into receivership I was able to negotiate a︄ liquidation plan with OCIF and the receiver. We informed customers they had 30 days to︅ provide wire instructions to have their funds returned. Those who did not provide any instructions︆ would have there funds transferred to Qenta. I did this to make sure all the︇ funds left OCIF and the Receiver's control, as OCIF had indicated that they would keep︈ any unclaimed funds. So I wanted those funds to go to Qenta, where they could︉ eventually be returned to their rightful owners.
The bank successfully sent over 500 wire individual︊ instructions to Novo bank and also instructed Novo to wire the balance to Qenta. But︋ Novo refused to honor those requests due to the 8-month Portugese government freeze. When the︌ freeze ended Novo refused to follow though with the wires as it claimed the requests︍ that it still had on file were too old, and needed to be resubmitted. However,︎ by then the bank had lost its ability to submit those requests.
Since then in️ my opinion the main reason the funds have still not been returned to their owners is the receiver. I think things are also complicated by the amount of money that the bank has spend under the receiver's care over the past 20 months has depleted the excess cash the bank had. Plus a $500K receivable the bank was set to receive was forfeited due to the receiver's negligence.
There is plenty of blame to go around. Had the Portugese government not frozen the account, all money would have been returned over a year and a half ago. The Portugese government only frozen the account because︀ Novo told them the bank was shut down for money laundering and tax evasion. Novo︁ told the Portugese government that as a result of media reports that falsely implied the︂ bank was shut down for tax evasion and money laundering. The media only wrote those︃ stories due to a misleading press release issued by the J5 claiming credit for the︄ closure of the bank, and linking the closure to its money laundering and tax evasion︅ investigation, even though the investigation itself found no evidence of either, and was not cited︆ by OCIF as a reason for their action. In fact , at the press conference︇ the OCIF commissioner said the closure of the bank had nothing to do with allegations︈ of money laundering or other crimes. That statement was left out of the J5 press︉ release and the media reports. But again the only reason the J5 was able to︊ issue that misleading press release, was that the OCIF commissioner gave them the opportunity to︋ participate in a press conference, and falsely imply that its failed money laundering and tax︌ evasion investigation was a success. OCIF has shut down many banks, both before and after︍ EPB, but none were announced with a press conference.
Also, to clarify if you recall the bank was unnecessarily placed into receivership on June 30th 2022. The reason given was that the bank was "critically insolvent" and customers needed the protection of a trustee. That turned out not to be true, as one of the first things the receiver did was confirm the bank was completely solvent, and had enough cash and cash equivalents on hand to make all depositors and other creditors whole. So I believe the real reason for this action was to help the IRS, J5, and the media︀ pretend the bank was shut down for money laundering and tax evasion. The media company︁ and reporters in Australia unsuccessful tied to use the shut down of the bank as︂ evidence in its "truth" defense to my winning defamation lawsuit, which the judge rightly rejected.︃
About a month after the bank went into receivership I was able to negotiate a︄ liquidation plan with OCIF and the receiver. We informed customers they had 30 days to︅ provide wire instructions to have their funds returned. Those who did not provide any instructions︆ would have there funds transferred to Qenta. I did this to make sure all the︇ funds left OCIF and the Receiver's control, as OCIF had indicated that they would keep︈ any unclaimed funds. So I wanted those funds to go to Qenta, where they could︉ eventually be returned to their rightful owners.
The bank successfully sent over 500 wire individual︊ instructions to Novo bank and also instructed Novo to wire the balance to Qenta. But︋ Novo refused to honor those requests due to the 8-month Portugese government freeze. When the︌ freeze ended Novo refused to follow though with the wires as it claimed the requests︍ that it still had on file were too old, and needed to be resubmitted. However,︎ by then the bank had lost its ability to submit those requests.
Since then in️ my opinion the main reason the funds have still not been returned to their owners is the receiver. I think things are also complicated by the amount of money that the bank has spend under the receiver's care over the past 20 months has depleted the excess cash the bank had. Plus a $500K receivable the bank was set to receive was forfeited due to the receiver's negligence.
There is plenty of blame to go around. Had the Portugese government not frozen the account, all money would have been returned over a year and a half ago. The Portugese government only frozen the account because︀ Novo told them the bank was shut down for money laundering and tax evasion. Novo︁ told the Portugese government that as a result of media reports that falsely implied the︂ bank was shut down for tax evasion and money laundering. The media only wrote those︃ stories due to a misleading press release issued by the J5 claiming credit for the︄ closure of the bank, and linking the closure to its money laundering and tax evasion︅ investigation, even though the investigation itself found no evidence of either, and was not cited︆ by OCIF as a reason for their action. In fact , at the press conference︇ the OCIF commissioner said the closure of the bank had nothing to do with allegations︈ of money laundering or other crimes. That statement was left out of the J5 press︉ release and the media reports. But again the only reason the J5 was able to︊ issue that misleading press release, was that the OCIF commissioner gave them the opportunity to︋ participate in a press conference, and falsely imply that its failed money laundering and tax︌ evasion investigation was a success. OCIF has shut down many banks, both before and after︍ EPB, but none were announced with a press conference.
I watched the press conference, and I speak Spanish so I understood everything the commissioner said, and she never mentioned anything about "money laundering", she just said that the bank was insolvent, and she was closing the bank to "protect the customers."
Ironic that when the bank was closed there was more than enough money to refund all customers, but now given that the Receiver has been involved for 20 months, customers will end up losing a percentage of their funds. So it turns out that closing︀ the bank the way that it was done, with an unnecessary press conference, has damaged︁ customers, not protect them as the commissioner said.
Ironic that when the bank was closed there was more than enough money to refund all customers, but now given that the Receiver has been involved for 20 months, customers will end up losing a percentage of their funds. So it turns out that closing︀ the bank the way that it was done, with an unnecessary press conference, has damaged︁ customers, not protect them as the commissioner said.
I'm really proud to have such defenders. Thanks to them, I can sleep peacefully, trusting that nothing will happen to the money that I haven't seen for 1.5 years.
Even the most solvent bank will not provide such a guarantee. They protect us from them and our funds from us. No money no woman, no woman no cry.
Even the most solvent bank will not provide such a guarantee. They protect us from them and our funds from us. No money no woman, no woman no cry.
can someone speaking Spanish make out the essence of the legal documents presented in EPB Bank | Liquidation ???
- Status
- Not open for further replies.