Our valued sponsor

Euro Pacific bank is a scam

#2,066
For the last year, Pete has been blaming the receiver and a bunch of other characters in this saga for the Novo fiasco, and now he admits he caused the mess. If the receiver was the one who submitted the wire requests and caused the delay, then everyone should rightly blame him, but now there's evidence that Pete has been trying to distance himself from the mess he caused.
 
#2,067
john8899 said:
Who submitted the 500 wire requests? Who is "we"? That sounds very suspicious to me...
Click to expand...
The bank submitted the requests. All 500 or so opted out and provided wiring instructions. The bank forwarded those instructions to Novo. Novo should have processed the wires. But instead they filed a suspicious report with the Portugese government due to the false media reports the bank was closed for money laundering and tax evasion. They did not want to facilitate those crimes themselves by processing wires for known money launderers and tax evaders. Then the Portugese government froze the bank's account for six months while it did its own investigation regarding alleged money laundering and tax evasion. Since it found no evidence of either, the freeze was lifted.
 
#2,068
john8899 said:
For the last year, Pete has been blaming the receiver and a bunch of other characters in this saga for the Novo fiasco, and now he admits he caused the mess. If the receiver was the one who submitted the wire requests and caused the delay, then everyone should rightly blame him, but now there's evidence that Pete has been trying to distance himself from the mess he caused.
Click to expand...
Burn the witch. Should have used bitcoins instead of a bank.
 
#2,069
danielboros said:
Burn the witch. Should have used bitcoins instead of a bank.
Click to expand...
What are you referring to. I admitted no such thing. I didn't cause the mess. The bank tried to return the money. But because of the BS OCIF/J5 press conference the Portugese government would not allow Novo to send them out. Novo of course was happy to keep the deposits and the interest for itself. So the Portugese government gave them the excuse. But there was also no reason for the OCIF Commissioner to put the bank into receivership. There was no valid reason to deny the sale of the bank. Had the sale been approved no deposits would have been tied up for even one second. How is any of this my fault?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Marie Manila, GF150 and Radko
#2,070
john8899 said:
For the last year, Pete has been blaming the receiver and a bunch of other characters in this saga for the Novo fiasco, and now he admits he caused the mess. If the receiver was the one who submitted the wire requests and caused the delay, then everyone should rightly blame him, but now there's evidence that Pete has been trying to distance himself from the mess he caused.
Click to expand...
No, I disagree with you. Why would have Peter caused a mess by submitting 500 wire requests. There's nothing strange or abnormal here. Each client would have received their own funds. It was Novo that caused the mess as per my understanding.
First, they gave themselves a reason to keep other people's money when the interest rates went higher and perhaps they thought that their over-suspicion could bring some bonus to them in terms of relationship with their government/tax authority.
It always helps when you show whose side you're on.... Don't you think that we have simply accepted the new normal that consists in feeling almost guilty to make use of our own funds and ask a permission to do so from the banks ? It's utterly offending to have to explain where, whom and for what ! Back to basics: beneficiary, routing data, wire order. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guess and Radko
#2,073
Pschiff said:
What are you referring to. I admitted no such thing. I didn't cause the mess. The bank tried to return the money. But because of the BS OCIF/J5 press conference the Portugese government would not allow Novo to send them out. Novo of course was happy to keep the deposits and the interest for itself. So the Portugese government gave them the excuse. But there was also no reason for the OCIF Commissioner to put the bank into receivership. There was no valid reason to deny the sale of the bank. Had the sale been approved no deposits would have been tied up for even one second. How is any of this my fault?
Click to expand...
I was being sarcastic. I have no intention of burning a witch.
 
#2,076
Today I filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against former IRS Chief Jim Lee, OCIF Commissioner Natalia Zequeria, the OCIF appointed receiver, Simon York of HMRC, Will Day of the ATO, two other J5 tax Chiefs and three reporters, for conspiring to deprive me of multiple Constitutional rights. There was no valid reason for the OCIF Commissioner to reject the sale of the bank to Qenta. I can prove she told multiple lies to justify her action. There was no reason to put the bank into receivership. The bank was closed as a PR stunt for the J5, so they could pretend their failed Atlantis investigation was a success. Corrupt "journalists" helped by publishing les. They all lied that the bank facilitated tax evasion and money laundering, so the J5 could take credit for closing it down. But their own investigation, as well as the independent investigation of OCIF, found no evidence of any financial crimes. The bank's customers were sacrificed to pull off this PR stunt. You guys can file your own class action lawsuit if you want to. I think you have an excellent case. I can't include customers in my lawsuit, as I have no standing to sue to recover their losses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marie Manila, Radko, Piano and 3 others
#2,080
Good luck to you Peter. I hope justice will be served for the people who got hit the hardest by this nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radko
Register now
You must login or register to view hidden content on this page.
You must log in or register to reply here.
Offshore Bank Accounts

Forum Announcement

Latest Threads

Offshore Bank Accounts
Top Bottom
Back