Our valued sponsor
Euro Pacific bank is a scam
- Thread starter sonato
- Start date
-
- Tags
- euro pacific bank
Peter's net worth is not the point here. We should not steer in the wrong direction/bark up the wrong tree. The Bank was shot(*) down for false reason, that's obvious to me. Besides, all the story of AT and AML is BS "to make a trap for fools", meant to attack our fundamental rights such as freedom and privacy and make a step further to our assets' full control. I strongly believe that Peter (like his father, AFAIK) did something that the self-appointed globalist elite and the States at its service could not allow.
The EPB wasn't a scam. It was a victim, like we all are in this case. And I'd add: the writing's on the wall for those who would fancy doing the same thing. That's the bottom line, as per my understanding.
(*) Yes, I mean "shot", not simply "shut".
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 of 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!
I am "very impressed": It took Qenta +2 months to repeat what was already public knowledge: that money had been received from the intermediary bank (on the 2nd of August: https://epbprliquidation.com/wp-con...Receiver-Report-on-Work-Performed-Q2-2024.pdf)
Qenta and Wigberto LOVE to drag this out...
Qenta and Wigberto LOVE to drag this out...
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 to the agencies desired end goal. They just went with the easiest solution to close the 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!
OCIF negligence is not proof of anything but their own incompetence.
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 some 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 card service and so on. Compared to what one can hopefully get today, it was more 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 meal 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 customers should've known well that they're keeping their funds and assets with an entity that was 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 bank to cover the opt outs.
Latest Threads
-
-
-
-
Georgia - possibility of putting crypto gains and foreign capital gains on tax return
- Started by JohnDebo
- Replies: 8
-
Crypto Card (Vendor Payments 10,000Euro a month) - Provider- Started by wellington
- Replies: 6
