The funds are in the reciever and Qentas possesion and apparently we are just awaiting for the last things to come through before OCIF approves the plan for distribution.
I believe the funds are distributed to the customers in Q1-2025
Our valued sponsor
Euro Pacific bank is a scam
- Thread starter sonato
- Start date
-
- Tags
- euro pacific bank
I believe the funds are distributed to the customers in Q1-2025
It’s absolutely hilarious to read this thread, how hope has stayed alive in people for all these years!
Why should hope disappear when according to the reciever there is progress?
He might be slower than we all would like him to be, but there is progress and there are updates on the situation.
If the money was gone I think it surfaced earlier in the process.
I am sure the funds will be returned eventually. It's possible that it will be less than 100 cents on the dollar. But not too much less. However customers lost out on interest they may otherwise have earned, and those who converted gold to dollars will have lost out on that appreciation. On the flip side those accounts that were converted from euros to dollars are ahead, at least at the moment. But I still think all depositors have an excellent class action lawsuit against OCIF, the IRS, and the other J5 tax chiefs who participated in the conspiracy to close the bank purely as a PR stunt to pretend their failed Atlantis Investigation was a success, and that the bank was actually guilty of the crimes they found no evidence were committed.
I think at this point people just want theor money back and move on with life …
After 3 years of this case dragging on, how can it possibly be anywhere near 100% of what that bank owes to people? The legal and court costs alone must have been enormous by now. If each creditor gets maybe 30% of what they’re owed, they should consider themselves lucky, anything else is pure fantasy and utopia!
The bank had about two to three million more than was owed to depositors. It was all in cash. Even if the receiver spent 1 million per year, it should still be about right. There is no way its anywhere near 30 cents. Worst case it should still be above 95 cents. Plus I think the bank is earning some interest now. So that should cover ongoing costs.
It's a shame to see how this thread has been ruined by all the useless trolls, none of them are even customers of EPB.
It would be sad for OCT to end up becoming another Twitter.
It would be sad for OCT to end up becoming another Twitter.
.
Don't ever keep money in banks based in banana republics that don't publish financials. None of you have ever seen a single audited financial report from EPB even until today and yet had blind faith in the bank.
As an OPT IN (that they chose for me), I guess later on, I will have to prove I was an EPB account holder. So far they didn't contact me, not sure they have my contact, I just receive their newsletter every 3/4 months, that's all. In the meantime, I have a new passport, new address...
Let's calm down! Even if Martin is quite right, it seems that what caused all that mess wasn't the EPB's financial situation.
It was the crackdown by the PR Administration pushed by some other more important ones in a desperate attempt to find something and show that they're acting against financial crime, generally speaking. I personally trust Peter when he says that he had suggested to inject the missing funds and comply with PR regulations. It is a key fact that if Peter's proposal was rejected, that means that the Administration wanted the EPB dismantled for any reason even some fake one. So, those who don't trust Peter can ask him for proof here in public or by private mail.
It was the crackdown by the PR Administration pushed by some other more important ones in a desperate attempt to find something and show that they're acting against financial crime, generally speaking. I personally trust Peter when he says that he had suggested to inject the missing funds and comply with PR regulations. It is a key fact that if Peter's proposal was rejected, that means that the Administration wanted the EPB dismantled for any reason even some fake one. So, those who don't trust Peter can ask him for proof here in public or by private mail.
I think the point is that if the bank was not located off shore it would have been more difficult for the regulators to crack down on it. Peter probably put the bank on an Island because it was easier and cheaper to do it that way. The consequence of doing that was that the J5 did not have open access to the transaction history of everyone with an account at the bank. They saw that there were a lot of banks like that in Puerto Rico (as well as other places) so they decided to crack down on all of them at the same time. No inland bank was affected. The tax office needs to be able to have access to every account in order to verify that they are legit. By having an offshore account one could receive income from a customer from let's say Asia and the IRS would never know. Clearly such a bank should not be allowed to grow in the eyes of the J5.
EPB was audited every single year by an independent company.
They contacted customers every single year, with a long form full of questions, amog those we had to confirm the balance of our accounts.
EPB was a solid bank, there was NOTHING wrong with it.
Everything that Peter has told us is the truth as we can see in his lawsuit against OCIF, which is responsible for everything that's happened.
@danielboros:
Yes, I agree with most of what you say but you can't have your cake and eat it. In french we say "on ne peut avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre" (you can't have the butter and the money you spent for it (or, possibly the money you got if you sold it ?)). So, if you seek privacy, you go offshore and no Administration would be kind to off-shore banks. All the Administrations want to control/submit you and shear you as much as possible via the cooperation of the banks. Those that don't cooperate are ostracized. So the dilemma is quite clear. Privacy comes with enhanced risk. However, it's unclear to me whether you support the offshore banks or the Administrations.....
Yes, I agree with most of what you say but you can't have your cake and eat it. In french we say "on ne peut avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre" (you can't have the butter and the money you spent for it (or, possibly the money you got if you sold it ?)). So, if you seek privacy, you go offshore and no Administration would be kind to off-shore banks. All the Administrations want to control/submit you and shear you as much as possible via the cooperation of the banks. Those that don't cooperate are ostracized. So the dilemma is quite clear. Privacy comes with enhanced risk. However, it's unclear to me whether you support the offshore banks or the Administrations.....
Why would I have to support a bank or any other business anywhere? It is also not either or. Imagine that you have two shops next to each other. One pays the mafia and the other won't. The one that won't, gets destroyed and the owner of the other says: "look, this is why I pay the mafia". I can recognize the point of view of every player in this situations without supporting the mafia. How many EPB customers would have kept their money at the bank if they knew who or what was coming for them? Probably none.
Latest Threads
-
-
What Are Some Ways to Get Funds Out of an Estate Into Company?
- Started by Allenk
- Replies: 2
-
Easiest option to open individual bank account remotely?
- Started by abaganov
- Replies: 19
-
-
Looking for VASP License in Seychelles- Started by roastedcorn
- Replies: 3
