Our valued sponsor
Euro Pacific bank is a scam
- Thread starter sonato
- Start date
-
- Tags
- euro pacific bank
I have no idea. I just wrote another email to Qenta asking for an explanation.
Peter, didn’t you already answer this? The US$750,000 from the September 2022 agreement (signed by Peter Schiff and Brent De Jong of Qenta) is part of the purchase price for the assets and liabilities being transferred under the agreement. This payment was supposed to be made to EPB (not Schiff). It was due 15 business days after the final Closing, which refers to when all assets and liabilities were to be transferred to the Purchasers (Qenta). However, as we know, this has not yet occurred. Qenta has stated that they refuse to make this payment ACCORDING TO PETER IN THIS FORUM
Yes, but I don't know why that would delay anything. Also, I don't think there has been a final closing yet. If there was all the funds and metal would be available to Opt in customers to withdraw. So any dispute over this payment should be argued after customers regain access to their deposits. It should not hold up the process. So my assumption is that there must be something else, in addition to a dispute over the final payment.
We already did the due diligence for the sale of the bank. OCIF did they own DD indecently.
I do not think Qenta or anybody else can sell the precious metals holding of the customers without their consent. Neither can it be used as a collateral by this institutions. A bank or institution is legally just a custodian of the Gold. That is a point to hold your assets in Gold instead of in currency.
In 2022 access to the accounts was granted for Opt-outs in order to sell Metals Holdings. If the Receiver or the Bank could have sold the Metals and convert it to currency they would not need to ask the customers to do it.
In any case, Gold and Silver is physically stored in Vaults, managed by professional companies like Brinks. They control the access to the Metals and certainly not allow any shady institutions to take possession of it so easily. So at best Qenta took over the custody from EPB but not ownership let alone possession. So at the end the question will be : who will be allowed to grant access to the rightful owners of this custodian Gold holdings, regardles how at the time their are going to be valued in currency.
I could be wrong, but this should be the status of the Metal holdings legally. I am sure Peter could be qualified to put me right on this!
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.
It depends on what the word "immediate" means. I am beginning think that words have different meanings depending on who is in charge.
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
Yes we know this, so what is your point? That the agreement is no longer binding because G Commerce is suspended?
EXACTLY!
Nobody knows where the assets are and it is ILLEGAL to hold third party funds without being properly licenced.
Nobody knows where the assets are and it is ILLEGAL to hold third party funds without being properly licenced.
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 sued 60 Minutes Australia for defamation, the sale to Qenta would have been approved, and no customer would have been denied access to their deposits for even one minute. Of course when I filed my lawsuit I never considered that possibility. So even though I won the defamation lawsuit, I wold have been far better off financially had I never filed it. Plus none of you would have been put through this ordeal.
https://9fraud.com/additional-foia-evidence/
https://9fraud.com/additional-foia-evidence/
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 not file the lawsuit, the bank would have still been shutdown and everyone would still have their funds taken away or lost.
By the way, it has been requested for a very long time, but can we please see audited statements for the bank while it was still operating? Is there something to hide or something in the statements that cannot be shown to the public?
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 gain to win the appeal as I would not have received any more money. The article contain at least 38 false statements about the bank. But they were not about me 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 to win that in Australian. Normally costs are paid on an ordinary basis.
The idea that I "settled" was invented by the media to minimize my total and complete victory over all five defendants. It's like I was a prize fighter and I was beating my opponent so badly that they threw in the towel. Then the loser says he didn't lose the fight, he settled.
Also I originally alleged 10 defamatory imputations. Nine denied all 10. The judge found that seven were carried by the broadcast. All I needed to prove was one was carried to win. I didn't lose on anything. However, the judge did not believe the defamatory implications were also carried by the article. My lawyer says she got that wrong, and I would have won on appeal.
Here is what my Australian lawyer wrote me regarding false media claims that my lawsuit against Nick McKenzie and Nine wasn't won, but settled.
The Federal Court of Australia entered judgment for you against 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, they asked for it to be limited in that way and we said no. The Court ordered that you were completely successful in the proceedings- you were defamed by McKenzie and all the others. Not only that, the Court ordered they pay you an amount that the Defamation Act says can only be awarded in ‘the most serious case’, plus a large amount for what could only have been awarded as ‘aggravated damages’, which is only awarded where the publisher’s conduct was so bad that it was ‘improper, unjustifiable or lacking 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 itself is rare and again is the absolute best case (or better) that could have been achieved had the Court decided it. But what is worse is that they agreed to all this. They admitted you should get better than the best case scenario and that this should be public and permanently on the Court record. So their attempts to portray the outcome as anything other than total victory for you is misleading (which is true to form) and pathetic.
Here is link to the federal court of Australia's website with 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 38 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/
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 gain to win the appeal as I would not have received any more money. The article contain at least 38 false statements about the bank. But they were not about me 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 to win that in Australian. Normally costs are paid on an ordinary basis.
The idea that I "settled" was invented by the media to minimize my total and complete victory over all five defendants. It's like I was a prize fighter and I was beating my opponent so badly that they threw in the towel. Then the loser says he didn't lose the fight, he settled.
Also I originally alleged 10 defamatory imputations. Nine denied all 10. The judge found that seven were carried by the broadcast. All I needed to prove was one was carried to win. I didn't lose on anything. However, the judge did not believe the defamatory implications were also carried by the article. My lawyer says she got that wrong, and I would have won on appeal.
Here is what my Australian lawyer wrote me regarding false media claims that my lawsuit against Nick McKenzie and Nine wasn't won, but settled.
The Federal Court of Australia entered judgment for you against 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, they asked for it to be limited in that way and we said no. The Court ordered that you were completely successful in the proceedings- you were defamed by McKenzie and all the others. Not only that, the Court ordered they pay you an amount that the Defamation Act says can only be awarded in ‘the most serious case’, plus a large amount for what could only have been awarded as ‘aggravated damages’, which is only awarded where the publisher’s conduct was so bad that it was ‘improper, unjustifiable or lacking 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 itself is rare and again is the absolute best case (or better) that could have been achieved had the Court decided it. But what is worse is that they agreed to all this. They admitted you should get better than the best case scenario and that this should be public and permanently on the Court record. So their attempts to portray the outcome as anything other than total victory for you is misleading (which is true to form) and pathetic.
Here is link to the federal court of Australia's website with 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 38 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/
Your quoting a part of a an agreement related to a dead entity. How are you gonna enforce it?
Also I find you insulting. So I will not reply to any more of your post. I will say this on more time to you. The bank did nothing wrong. The Age article contained 38 separate false statements about the bank, that were proven false by Nine's own evidence that I received in discovery. So the Age reporters did not just make false statements. They lied.
I have publicly called Nick Mckenzie and Charlotte Grieve liars and frauds on multiple occasions. I've accused them of falsifying evidence and deliberately misquoting people o deceive 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. Yet they have not sued me for defamation. Thats because they know I can prove that they are liars and frauds.
If Nick Mckenzie called me a liar or a fraud tomorrow, I would immediately sue for defamation again, and I would win, as he has no proof that I ever lied about anything, or that I ever committed fraud. Yet I can absolutely prove that he committed fraud and told multiple lies about the bank in the Age article.
Latest Threads
-
Investor visa Abu Dhabi /UAE - Healh Insurance mandatory
- Started by Topspin
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
