Euro Pacific bank is a scam

[ap31]

I do not think Qenta or anybody else︀ can sell the precious metals holding of the customers without their consent. Neither can it︁ be used as a collateral by this institutions. A bank or institution is legally just︂ a custodian of the Gold. That is a point to hold your assets in Gold︃ instead of in currency.
In 2022 access to the accounts was granted for Opt-outs in︄ order to sell Metals Holdings. If the Receiver or the Bank could have sold the︅ Metals and convert it to currency they would not need to ask the customers to︆ do it.
In any case, Gold and Silver is physically stored in Vaults, managed by︇ professional companies like Brinks. They control the access to the Metals and certainly not allow︈ any shady institutions to take possession of it so easily. So at best Qenta took︉ over the custody from EPB but not ownership let alone possession. So at the end︊ the question will be : who will be allowed to grant access to the rightful︋ owners of this custodian Gold holdings, regardles how at the time their are going to︌ be valued in currency.
I could be wrong, but this should be the status of︍ the Metal holdings legally. I am sure Peter could be qualified to put me right︎ on this!

 

[Martin Everson]

Is Qenta a bank or FI? Was it mentioned in the asset sale agreement⁠ what Qenta can and cannot do with assets it purchased from EPB? The legal status⁤ of how assets are held by Qenta only Qenta can answer.

 

[danielboros]

It depends on⁠ what the word "immediate" means. I am beginning think that words have different meanings depending⁤ on who is in charge.

 

[SCHLOSSFINANZ]

G-Commerce DMCC holds for sure no licence lol

 

[Martin Everson]

G Commerce DMCC business license expired back in 13/10/2023...lol.

Enter "G Commerce DMCC" in⁠ search below and see for yourself. The entity is defunct for well over a year.⁤

https://dmcc.ae/public-register

 

[danielboros]

Yes we know this, so what is your point?⁠ That the agreement is no longer binding because G Commerce is suspended?

 

[SCHLOSSFINANZ]

EXACTLY!
Nobody knows where the assets are and it is ILLEGAL to hold third party‌ funds without being properly licenced.

 

[Pschiff]

Here is the latest production from the IRS to my FOIA request regarding information related‌ to the press conference to announce the closure of the bank. Despite the heavy redactions,‍ it confirms my suspicion that the reason the sale to Qetna was rejected, and the⁠ bank was put into receivership, was because it was important to the Australian Tax Office.⁤ I think the ATO was doing a favor for Nick McKanzie of the Age and⁣ 60 Minutes, as he needed something bad to happen to the bank to use as⁢ evidence to defend against my defamation lawsuit. So it's likely that had I never sued︀ 60 Minutes Australia for defamation, the sale to Qenta would have been approved, and no︁ customer would have been denied access to their deposits for even one minute. Of course︂ when I filed my lawsuit I never considered that possibility. So even though I won︃ the defamation lawsuit, I wold have been far better off financially had I never filed︄ it. Plus none of you would have been put through this ordeal.
https://9fraud.com/additional-foia-evidence/

 

[SCHLOSSFINANZ]

yes sure of course

 

[john8899]

You did‌ not win the lawsuit you settled. You won on 7 imputations and lost on 13.‍ Source: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2022/2022fca1120
The lawsuit was also for defamation against you personally and not defamation against⁠ the bank.
You only got the 60 minutes episode taken down.
You lost on the⁤ article, so all the articles on EPB's wrong doings are still published on the internet.⁣
Please do not twist the facts because all the judgements are published and easily available⁢ to the public to read and study. It is insulting.

Even if you did not︀ file the lawsuit, the bank would have still been shutdown and everyone would still have︁ their funds taken away or lost.

By the way, it has been requested for a︂ very long time, but can we please see audited statements for the bank while it︃ was still operating? Is there something to hide or something in the statements that cannot︄ be shown to the public?

 

[Pschiff]

No I won on defamation. The part that was "settled" was how much they had‌ to pay me. But I only agreed to accept that because they offered to pay‍ me more than the legal maximum under Australian law. So had I not taken the⁠ offer, I risked having to cover all of their and my legal costs going forward.⁤

The bank could not sue for defamation under Australian law. So I was only allowed⁣ to sue personally.

The article was defamatory, had I appealed I would have own. But⁢ I already won a judgment agains the Age, so there was not much to gain︀ to win the appeal as I would not have received any more money. The article︁ contain at least 38 false statements about the bank. But they were not about me︂ personally.

All in all I won 7 out of 7 judgements against all five defendants.︃ They were also ordered to pay my costs on an indemnity basis. It's rare to︄ win that in Australian. Normally costs are paid on an ordinary basis.

The idea that︅ I "settled" was invented by the media to minimize my total and complete victory over︆ all five defendants. It's like I was a prize fighter and I was beating my︇ opponent so badly that they threw in the towel. Then the loser says he didn't︈ lose the fight, he settled.

Also I originally alleged 10 defamatory imputations. Nine denied all︉ 10. The judge found that seven were carried by the broadcast. All I needed to︊ prove was one was carried to win. I didn't lose on anything. However, the judge︋ did not believe the defamatory implications were also carried by the article. My lawyer says︌ she got that wrong, and I would have won on appeal.

Here is what my︍ Australian lawyer wrote me regarding false media claims that my lawsuit against Nick McKenzie and︎ Nine wasn't won, but settled.

The Federal Court of Australia entered judgment for you against️ McKenzie.It’s rare for a settlement to include judgment. I would say 99 out of 100‌ cases that settle are on a ‘without admission’ basis. Usually there is a deed with‍ confidentiality provisions. So not only did you get judgment, meaning McKenzie and the others were⁠ liable to you for defamation, but McKenzie and the others actually conceded this. They consented⁤ to an order that you be given judgment against them. They utterly capitulated and gave⁣ you total victory.The judgment is for the whole of the proceedings, against all of the⁢ respondents. It’s not limited to the broadcast. As I mentioned in my last email, they︀ asked for it to be limited in that way and we said no. The Court︁ ordered that you were completely successful in the proceedings- you were defamed by McKenzie and︂ all the others. Not only that, the Court ordered they pay you an amount that︃ the Defamation Act says can only be awarded in ‘the most serious case’, plus a︄ large amount for what could only have been awarded as ‘aggravated damages’, which is only︅ awarded where the publisher’s conduct was so bad that it was ‘improper, unjustifiable or lacking︆ in bona fides’.Not only that, they also consented to paying almost all of your costs,︇ from a very early stage of the proceedings, on an indemnity basis. That in itself︈ is rare and again is the absolute best case (or better) that could have been︉ achieved had the Court decided it. But what is worse is that they agreed to︊ all this. They admitted you should get better than the best case scenario and that︋ this should be public and permanently on the Court record. So their attempts to portray︌ the outcome as anything other than total victory for you is misleading (which is true︍ to form) and pathetic.

Here is link to the federal court of Australia's website with︎ the final judgment. it is not a settlement.
https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD1086/2021/3924889/event/31614647/document/2196773

Here is proof of the 38️ false statements contained in the Age article.
https://9fraud.com/the-day-the-international-tax-authorities-came-knocking/

Here are all seven judgements I won.‌
https://9fraud.com/peter-schiff-wins-defamation-judgments/

 

[Martin Everson]

Your quoting a part‍ of a an agreement related to a dead entity. How are you gonna enforce it?⁠

 

[Pschiff]

Also I find︃ you insulting. So I will not reply to any more of your post. I will︄ say this on more time to you. The bank did nothing wrong. The Age article︅ contained 38 separate false statements about the bank, that were proven false by Nine's own︆ evidence that I received in discovery. So the Age reporters did not just make false︇ statements. They lied.

I have publicly called Nick Mckenzie and Charlotte Grieve liars and frauds︈ on multiple occasions. I've accused them of falsifying evidence and deliberately misquoting people o deceive︉ their readers about what they were told. I've said they are a disgrace to journalism,︊ and that no one can believe anything they write.

These are all defamatory statements. Yet︋ they have not sued me for defamation. Thats because they know I can prove that︌ they are liars and frauds.

If Nick Mckenzie called me a liar or a fraud︍ tomorrow, I would immediately sue for defamation again, and I would win, as he has︎ no proof that I ever lied about anything, or that I ever committed fraud. Yet️ I can absolutely prove that he committed fraud and told multiple lies about the bank‌ in the Age article.

 

[danielboros]

That was the part that‍ contained information about the stuff you inquired. It also mentions that the entity is fully⁠ owned by Quenta so you would have to enforce them. If the gold is not⁤ managed the same way that they promised that is a breach of contract.
I don't⁣ know how long it takes to get certified, however Quenta would have 6 months to⁢ get it after the agreement is accepted by OCIF. Since OCIF doesn't seem to be︀ accepting anything anytime soon they might have more than a year to get certified again.︁

 

[SCHLOSSFINANZ]

do you understand how legal frameworks (corporate law) is structured? You can't enforce Qenta if‌ G-Commerce is dead because G-Commerce has limited liability and the shareholder (Qenta) is not liable‍ for anything! It is hard to explain to you the current situation with EPB when⁠ you lack basic knowledge of banking and legal entities...

 

[danielboros]

Why would someone with that knowledge need explanations? To know what they already know? To‌ understand what they already understand? If you don't like my answers then STOP asking me‍ these questions! Not everyone who had a savings account or gold at EPB had a⁠ business major from an US institute.
And yes you are correct that I do not⁤ understand how you can indemnify yourself from liability by simply failing to renewing a license.⁣

 

[SCHLOSSFINANZ]

because you write absolute nonsense here makes me wonder how you come to such conclusions.‌
Hold PS accuntable for what he did. When you fall for his conspiracy theory trap‍ its clearly that you have no clue at all.

 

[danielboros]

What does corporate law have anything to do with PS? You are the one introducing theories⁠ here. I do not need to ask PS to see that his bank was treated⁤ unfairly. All I need is a pair of eyes. Was Silicon Valley Bank treated this⁣ way? Were all customers of SVB also been investigated? Was SVB investigated by anyone prior⁢ to going broke? Did the IRS spread claims they could not substantiate about that bank︀ as well? If PS is the criminal you believe him to be why didn't the︁ IRS accuse him or his bank of anything at court? They didn't have any problem︂ sending his dad to prison for life for giving bad advice.

Maybe you are right︃ and Quenta is legally allowed to steal all of the opt in money. Even if︄ that happens that would not change my mind because those are two separate things. Everyone︅ (or most) including me had the choice to opt out. I knew that this liquidation︆ would take years given how corrupt the system is and so I didn't want to︇ turn my gold in. It was a risk, end of story.

 

[against the wind]

PS wrote here that the money is safe. For me that is sufficient. You can‌ keep on going on and on and make yourself and everybody sick. It is in‍ the first place upto the Receiver and Qenta to get things out in the open,⁠ give solutions and get things done. If the receiver puts in writing that the money⁤ is gone then ofcourse we all got the get together asap and start legal action...against⁣ all parties if needed

 

[Alpinist]

What CEO of Qenta has told to Peter can be anything far away from truth.‌

It took even a few weeks before Peter succeeded to reach him. Then all the‍ sudden we have good news.

Peter tells us only, what he as been told without⁠ proof any kind.

We even don’t know where the funds are at the moment.

I was recently in Dubai, where Qenta should have one of their main offices.

It was⁤ closed and rent was not paid.

So everything is fine, no worries.