Euro Pacific bank is a scam

[danielboros]

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.

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 last time I checked. Citizens don't lose their rights the moment they go abroad or do an international transaction. If EPB gave up this data as you suggest then in my opinion they have at least violated British GDPR laws which EPB had to comply with.

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.

How do you know that? Sure it is possible that the HMRC 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 higher chance that the statute of limitations won't apply anymore. Could be.

You have all the facts wrong

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

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

 

[Radko]

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 last time I checked. Citizens don't lose their rights the moment they go abroad or do an international transaction. If EPB gave up this data as you suggest then in my 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 HMRC 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 higher chance that the statute of limitations won't apply anymore. Could be.


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

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

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

The J5 was using international AML laws 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 AML regulations are the Bank Secrecy Act and the Patriot Act. The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) is the first and most comprehensive federal law aimed at preventing the financing of terrorists and money laundering.

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

 

[danielboros]

I see no proof that all Australian and/or all Dutch customers were contacted by authorities. If it was reported, where is the report? If someone is already investigated of course you could get info from the Bank or the IRS, but that is different from giving away every single name on a list.

I'm not sure that the BSA and/or the PA gives the IRS the power to give away information.

The only legit way the HMRC could obtain the info seems to me was via Mender who was hired by OCIF who in turn colluded with the IRS. That seems to me a more sensible reason than to say, the IRS needed a win so they didn't allow the sale to Quenta. Maybe they just needed someone who was willing to give the list directly to the HMRC.

I imagine Novo will never pay. They are probably insolvent. If there's a recession or a depression both the money and the assets will be used up by the gov. in Puerto Rico.

 

[Lemon]

I see no proof that all Australian and/or all Dutch customers were contacted by authorities. If it was reported, where is the report? If someone is already investigated of course you could get info from the Bank or the IRS, but that is different from giving away every single name on a list.

I'm not sure that the BSA and/or the PA gives the IRS the power to give away information.

The only legit way the HMRC could obtain the info seems to me was via Mender who was hired by OCIF who in turn colluded with the IRS. That seems to me a more sensible reason than to say, the IRS needed a win so they didn't allow the sale to Quenta. Maybe they just needed someone who was willing to give the list directly to the HMRC.

I imagine Novo will never pay. They are probably insolvent. If there's a recession or a depression both the money and the assets will be used up by the gov. in Puerto Rico.

Novo Banco 2024 Q1 profit: 180M €
And it looks like they are preparing for an IPO.... maybe they need the books to look as good as possible?

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/portugals-novo-banco-aims-ipo-wants-end-dividend-ban-2024-05-02/

 

[Radko]

Novo Banco 2024 Q1 profit: 180M €
And it looks like they are preparing for an IPO.... maybe they need the books to look as good as possible?

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/portugals-novo-banco-aims-ipo-wants-end-dividend-ban-2024-05-02/

Some of that profit comes from the interest they are earning on our money.

 

[MikeDem]

New game: EPB Poker
I bet that soon a new update will be out, and I bet it will be useless

 

[Lemon]

New game: EPB Poker
I bet that soon a new update will be out, and I bet it will be useless

I fold.

 

[regi]

Check

 

[Radko]

 

[Pschiff]

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 last time I checked. Citizens don't lose their rights the moment they go abroad or do an international transaction. If EPB gave up this data as you suggest then in my 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 HMRC 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 higher chance that the statute of limitations won't apply anymore. Could be.


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

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

All the data on the bank's customers was turned over to a grand jury in Sacramento Cal. by order of the U.S. government. We are a PR bank. We had no choice but to comply with the court order. Whoever shared that information with the ATO or reporters broke the law. The grand jury investigation, and all the documents related to it, where supposed to be kept secret.

 

[Pschiff]

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 give customer data to the HMRC? How is that action in the best interest of the customers? What law requires Lugo Mender to provide this data.

How does that prove anything? How would they know before they could check the books? Are you assuming that the J5 knew that they won't find anything before they had the data?

Why did the HMRC wait for Lugo to take over before they sent out the their threats and how did the IRS obtain the data? Did you give it to them?

The receiver took over on June 30th 2022. That's the day the of the press conference. There is no way the HMRC would have announced an investigation of UK depositors before than. I don't even think the HMRC expected to find any UK customers evading taxes. They must have known from the IRS investigation that no evidence of tax evasion was found. I think the HMRC announcement of an investigation was part of the PR stunt to pretend the bank was facilitating tax evasion, and that the Atlantis investigation was a success. The head of the HMRC falsely claimed the J5 took out Euro Pacific bank to stop tax evasion. So by announcing the investigation of 500 people they implied those people where among those found to be using EPB to evade taxes. It also may have been a bluff to get some people to confess, as the investigation gave them no evidence that any UK citizen evaded taxes.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1784606389140148627

 

[Radko]

It also may have been a bluff to get some people to confess,

That's what it seemed, a bluff for the most part.
UK tax accountants were trying to convince everybody to come forward or risk going to jail (no one has gone to jail as of today).

 

[regi]

It also may have been a bluff to get some people to confess, as the investigation gave them no evidence that any UK citizen evaded taxes.

This all seems to be a joke and some kind of wicked game. We already know this and the question is why our money are stilll frozen. If I remember correctly, it was a court order to release them. How can this inept plan still exist?

 

[milhous]

Hello, everyone,
a lot of people on this forum already joined our group and towegether we hired a lawyer in puerto rico. I recently launched this site:

www.europacific-customers.com


We want as many customers as possible to join this group. The more we are with the more money we can raise to take legal action against OCIF / the receiver and other parties involved to get our money back.

As for today we are with about 25 customers but I think we can reach a 100 at least.
So please check this website and if you need information sent an email to [email protected]

Would be nice if everyone links this site to their socials!

Regars

Arjen

PS: Thanks to Peter that he recommended this site on his X account

 

[Radko]

Hello, everyone,
a lot of people on this forum already joined our group and towegether we hired a lawyer in puerto rico. I recently launched this site:

www.europacific-customers.com


We want as many customers as possible to join this group. The more we are with the more money we can raise to take legal action against OCIF / the receiver and other parties involved to get our money back.

As for today we are with about 25 customers but I think we can reach a 100 at least.
So please check this website and if you need information sent an email to [email protected]

Would be nice if everyone links this site to their socials!

Regars

Arjen

PS: Thanks to Peter that he recommended this site on his X account

Not a good idea to take legal action against OCIF or the Receiver, you don't have a chance, and then you'll never see the money.

 

[Pschiff]

Not a good idea to take legal action against OCIF or the Receiver, you don't have a chance, and then you'll never see the money.

The receiver should file a lawsuit against the IRS on behalf of the bank.

 

[Radko]

The receiver should file a lawsuit against the IRS on behalf of the bank.

Why didn't you file the lawsuit to try to save your bank?

 

[Pschiff]

Why didn't you file the lawsuit to try to save your bank?

The main reason is that I did not want to tie up customer deposits. Had I known this was going to happen I would not have agreed to the liquidation. I may very well file a lawsuit now. If I do I hope the receiver will allow the bank to join on behalf of customers. I also now have the evidence to prove that the actions taken against the bank were illegal. I think the IRS and OCIF know this, which is why they simultaneously removed all references to the closure of Euro Pacific Bank from their websites.

 

[Radko]

If I do I hope the receiver will allow the bank to join on behalf of customers.

I doubt the Receiver will do anything that could hurt the OCIF.

I also now have the evidence to prove that the actions taken against the bank were illegal.

What has changed during these two years that you now have the evidence to prove that the whole thing was illegal?
You already know what the Commissioner will say if the case goes to trial. She will say that "the bank was insolvent", she said those exact words during the press conference.
Unless you can prove that she told you, just a few months before she closed the bank, that there was no need for you to add more capital, as Qenta was going to take care of that once the sale of the bank was finalized.

I suppose a good lawyer should be able to tell you if you have a chance at getting damages from OCIF.

 

[Pschiff]

The bank was not insolvent. That was confirmed by the receiver. It had millions more in cash than was owed to depositors, plus no debt and no loans. While it's true that the bank did not have enough regulatory capital, those capital requirements were written for banks that made loans. Mine made none. More importantly, the bank was never given a chance to add additional capital. Had OCIF ask us to add capital we would have. The bank was operating based on assurance made by the Commissioner herself that the bank's capital was fine pending approval of the sale to Qenta. Qenta had agreed to add $7 million in additional capital once the sale was formally approved. That was millions more than was needed. I offered to put the $7 million in myself while OCIF did their due diligence on the principals of Qenta, but the Commissioner told me that was not necessary (there were about 8 witnesses to the Commissioner's assurance) . Five months later she made a secret deal with the IRS to shutdown the bank using low capital as the excuse. She kept that decision quite for over three months, without once warning the bank that it needed more capital or it would be shut down.

The Commissioner had already told us informally that she supported the sale, but that OCIF still needed to formally vet the buyer. What I know now that I didn't know then is that the IRS illegally colluded with OCIF to arrange the shutdown of the bank over three months before it happened. During those three months OCIF misrepresented to me, the bank, and Qenta that the sale was still being vetted for approval.

Regardless ,even if the bank did not have enough regulatory capital to operate, once the bank's license was suspended, there was no reason to put the bank into receivership. The bank could have retuned all customer deposits on its own. There was no bankruptcy to work out in receivership.

Also, the was no valid reason to hold that press conference, which resulted in the Novo freeze. That was all part of the plan to allow the J5 the bank was guilty of crimes the grand jury proved it did not commit. So the Commissioner was not acting in the best interest of customers, but of the IRS and J5. She sacrificed customers for a J5 PR stunt. Of course, she did not see the Novo freeze coming, so she had no idea she opened such a large can of worms.