Finance and economics mentoring
New Horizons Paraguay
Ticker tape by TradingView

Euro Pacific bank is a scam

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can call it pipe dream‍ if you are more comfortable that way. If you are less than 30-40, you certainly⁠ can't recall that in the 90s, for instance, economic freedom and privacy were no pipe⁤ dreams. And I myself thought that the EPB was too tough to conduct rather hard⁣ a KYC process. Well, that didn't help. When you start being compliant, it's never enough⁢ and you end in the dumps, all the same. However, that's not the subject of︀ this thread either.
 
Why a victim, the money is⁤ in the bank, they failed to handle our money to comply to the regulations, so⁣ it not a victim it is mis management!
 
If every bank that had regulatory issues were to be closed⁠ we would not have any banks today. The fact that a bank like Silicon Valley⁤ was forcefully bought while EPB was not allowed to be sold suggests that regulation was⁣ not a major factor in these cases. OCIF could have came up with other nonsense⁢ to close the bank, like not vetting clients which is an arbitrary demand subject to︀ the agencies desired end goal. They just went with the easiest solution to close the︁ bank the J5 wanted to kill, of which they proudly and publicly supported.
 
Why, @danielboros has put it well enough herein above. I can only⁠ add, for short, that the Bank was ordered to liquidate for insufficient capitalization, whereas:
* Peter was not allowed to re-capitalize (guess why)
* The level of capitalization is a⁤ general rule, i. e. for any bank. However, the EPB was a full-reserve bank - try to find one today -
and therefore the risk of client asset loss was⁣ nigh on zero.
All that could have been settled smoothly had the OCIF shown an⁢ ounce of good will. So, no doubt, the real reason was elsewhere.
 
EPB was from day one not fit to hold a licence as a bank. Back‌ in the days OCIF handed out these licences like toilet paper to everyone!
 
Come on! Are you blaming the EPB for what OCIF did‍ ? You can always criticize the EPB if you expect a better service. However, if⁠ you are trapped as we all are, it's because you stayed with the Bank till⁤ the end. You could have found a better one. In my opinion, you can't get⁣ the same service from an offshore bank, especially if you live in Germany where they⁢ do many things for free. If you go offshore, I guess that you have some︀ other kind of issues to address. So, "You can't always get what you want"
To me the EPB was fair: not too expensive, reasonable privacy, good investment facilities, decent card︁ service and so on. Compared to what one can hopefully get today, it was more︂ than fine. Of course I'm not confusing common people with the
8-9-figure-net-worth persons who, presumably,︃ can get a higher level of service but there is not such thing as meal︄ for free.....
 
Why is that so in your opinion? What's your definition of "legit" if we're taking into⁠ account that offshore banks, be it in PR or elsewhere, nowadays regularly lose or change⁤ their correspondents, be it with fedwire or regular bank?

Do you determine fitness and propriety⁣ based on the fact they hold opt-in customers' funds and assets on standstill while liquidation⁢ proceedings for the Europac are still ongoing? I'd rather say it's risk-wise on their part...︀

not defending Qenta or Peter Schiff, but that seems like bigotry to me.

EuroPac customers︁ should've known well that they're keeping their funds and assets with an entity that was︂ founded/influenced by fierce public critic in 2nd generation of US govt, period.
 
Looks like Qenta is makkng a good profit with interest rate 3-4% from USD 30‌ million. They are not in hurry to return our funds and they can keep on‍ doing this the next years ahead. There is always an excuse for a new delay.⁠
 
Qenta won't keep a penny of the interest until the⁤ Receiver sets an official migration date, the interest belong to EPB.
 
Did I miss an episode ? How do you know⁤ that Qenta has our funds ? I thought they were held at a Portuguese bank⁣ whose exact name is irrelevant. In my opinion handing the funds in to Qenta is⁢ a kind of progress, however insignificant it may be.
 
The bank handled the money fine. No money was lost. All⁠ the rules were complied with. We can't help it if the IRS and OCIF conspire⁤ to break the law. The bank was the biggest victim, with me the biggest victim⁣ at the bank.
 
Not true. EPB was one of the best IFE's on the island.⁠ We had an account at the Fed, multiple correspondent banking relationships, and had just been⁤ approved by American Express to be a global card issuer.
 
The money at Novo Bank never⁤ went to Qenta. The Receiver finally transferred it to a bank in California. Qenta got⁣ the money that was on deposit at IB, which was more than enough to cover⁢ all opt ins. So now it needs to transfer the excess back to the bank︀ to cover the opt outs.
 
Correct, the bank was closed solely as a publicity stunt for the J5. It was arranged︀ by the IRS and secretly agreed to by the OCIF Commissioner. She had originally told︁ all the parties she was going to approve the sale to Qetna. For seven months︂ we all proceeded under the impression the sale would go through. However, sometime in March︃ of 2022 the IRS got the OCIF Commissioner to change her mind, reject the sale︄ she had planned to approve, and hold a press conference three months later to allow︅ the J5 to take credit for the closure and pretend the bank was guilty of︆ the very crimes its own investigation proved it did not commit. This was also done︇ to help the Australian reporters defend against my defamation lawsuit. They introduced the closure of︈ the bank as evidence, but the judge didn't buy any of it. Nine lost my︉ defamation lawsuit anyway. They had no evidence the bank actually did anything wrong.
 
Does this mean that the opt-ins are fully covered but the opt-outs might not⁣ be?
 
From what I understand all customers will be treated equally.‍ That is part of what is supposedly holding up the return of customer funds. They⁠ need to make sure everyone recovers the same percentage of their deposits, in case there⁤ is no enough left to cover 100%.
 
Yes, this logic definitely makes sense. However, if⁤ we gear in, the next (sensible) question is: why not return what is already available,⁣ e.g. 90 % on a per capita basis and wait for the rest ? It⁢ would only cost one wire each one. So what ?
Anybody's guess ?😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

JohnnyDoe.is is an uncensored discussion forum
focused on free speech,
independent thinking, and controversial ideas.
Everyone is responsible for their own words.

Quick Navigation

Forums

User Menu

Login
Community platform by JohnnyDoe © 2025 JohnnyDoe
Top Bottom