Euro Pacific bank is a scam
- Thread starter sonato
- Start date
- Status
I think so too. It will have been a good life lesson and one I had been through many years ago in order to learn what to avoid.
of course you will get money back. It just depends if it will be 90%, 80%, 70% or .... of the each $
After 3 years of this case dragging on, how can it possibly be anywhere near 100% of what that bank owes to people? The legal and court costs alone must have been enormous by now. If each creditor gets maybe 30% of what they’re owed, they should consider themselves lucky, anything else is pure fantasy and utopia!
The bank had about two to three million more than was owed to depositors. It was all in cash. Even if the receiver spent 1 million per year, it should still be about right. There is no way its anywhere near 30 cents. Worst case it should still be above 95 cents. Plus I think the bank is︀ earning some interest now. So that should cover ongoing costs.
Don't ever keep money in banks based in banana republics that don't publish financials. None of you have ever seen a single audited financial report from EPB even until today and yet had blind faith in the bank.
As an OPT IN (that they chose for me), I guess later on, I will have to prove I was an EPB account holder. So far they didn't contact me, not sure they have my contact, I just receive their newsletter every 3/4 months, that's all. In the meantime, I have a new passport, new address...
Let's calm down! Even if Martin is quite right, it seems that what caused all that mess wasn't the EPB's financial situation.
It was the crackdown by the PR Administration pushed by some other more important ones in a desperate attempt to find something and show that they're acting against financial crime, generally speaking. I personally trust Peter when he says that he had suggested to inject the missing funds and comply with PR regulations. It is a key fact that if Peter's proposal was rejected, that means that the Administration wanted the EPB dismantled for any reason even some fake one. So, those who︀ don't trust Peter can ask him for proof here in public or by private mail.︁
It was the crackdown by the PR Administration pushed by some other more important ones in a desperate attempt to find something and show that they're acting against financial crime, generally speaking. I personally trust Peter when he says that he had suggested to inject the missing funds and comply with PR regulations. It is a key fact that if Peter's proposal was rejected, that means that the Administration wanted the EPB dismantled for any reason even some fake one. So, those who︀ don't trust Peter can ask him for proof here in public or by private mail.︁
I think the point is that if the bank was not located off shore it would have been more difficult for the regulators to crack down on it. Peter probably put the bank on an Island because it was easier and cheaper to do it that way. The consequence of doing that was that the J5 did not have open access to the transaction history of everyone with an account at the bank. They saw that there were a lot of banks like that in Puerto Rico (as well as other places) so they decided to crack down on all of them at the same︀ time. No inland bank was affected. The tax office needs to be able to have︁ access to every account in order to verify that they are legit. By having an︂ offshore account one could receive income from a customer from let's say Asia and the︃ IRS would never know. Clearly such a bank should not be allowed to grow in︄ the eyes of the J5.
EPB was audited every single year by an independent company.
They contacted customers every single year, with a long form full of questions, amog those we had to confirm the balance of our accounts.
EPB was a solid bank, there was NOTHING wrong with it.
Everything that Peter has told us is the truth as we can see in his lawsuit against OCIF, which is responsible for everything that's happened.
They contacted customers every single year, with a long form full of questions, amog those we had to confirm the balance of our accounts.
EPB was a solid bank, there was NOTHING wrong with it.
Everything that Peter has told us is the truth as we can see in his lawsuit against OCIF, which is responsible for everything that's happened.
@danielboros:
Yes, I agree with most of what you say but you can't have your cake and eat it. In french we say "on ne peut avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre" (you can't have the butter and the money you spent for it (or, possibly the money you got if you sold it ?)). So, if you seek privacy, you go offshore and no Administration would be kind to off-shore banks. All the Administrations want to control/submit you and shear you as much as possible via the cooperation of the banks. Those that don't cooperate are ostracized. So the dilemma is quite︀ clear. Privacy comes with enhanced risk. However, it's unclear to me whether you support the︁ offshore banks or the Administrations.....
Yes, I agree with most of what you say but you can't have your cake and eat it. In french we say "on ne peut avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre" (you can't have the butter and the money you spent for it (or, possibly the money you got if you sold it ?)). So, if you seek privacy, you go offshore and no Administration would be kind to off-shore banks. All the Administrations want to control/submit you and shear you as much as possible via the cooperation of the banks. Those that don't cooperate are ostracized. So the dilemma is quite︀ clear. Privacy comes with enhanced risk. However, it's unclear to me whether you support the︁ offshore banks or the Administrations.....
Why would I have to support a bank or any other business anywhere? It is also not either or. Imagine that you have two shops next to each other. One pays the mafia and the other won't. The one that won't, gets destroyed and the owner of the other says: "look, this is why I pay the mafia". I can recognize the point of view of every player in this situations without supporting the mafia. How many EPB customers would have kept their money at the bank if they knew who or what was coming for them? Probably none.
But the bank didn't offer︂ privacy. It did at first when it was located in St. Vincent, but it gave︃ that feature up when the bank relocated to Puerto Rico in 2017. The customers knew︄ that, and those who wanted privacy closed their accounts at that time.
- Status