The Receiver doesn't get paid until January.
4 and a half months since Novo returned the funds, 2 months since the Receiver said that we would get the money in the "upcoming weeks", he can care less!
Last edited:
Our valued sponsor
Euro Pacific bank is a scam
- Thread starter sonato
- Start date
-
- Tags
- euro pacific bank
The Receiver doesn't get paid until January.
4 and a half months since Novo returned the funds, 2 months since the Receiver said that we would get the money in the "upcoming weeks", he can care less!
Im sure if they really want. They can. Everything is ready in theory but they delaying it for no proper reason imo.
Peter has been quiet and no updates about the lawsuit for us, I suppose they are not good ones and he prefers not to mention that.
Looks like none of us will get the funds back and receiver with OCIF are happy to use our funds to defend themselves
Looks like none of us will get the funds back and receiver with OCIF are happy to use our funds to defend themselves
They contacted me twice, but they didn't ask for anything. They just wanted me to download their app, which I'm not going to do.
Here is one of those emails that I received, since I ignored them they sent me a second email which was very similar, this was last year.
New information that I just obtained through my lawsuit against the IRS to force them to comply with the FOIA has borne fruit. While the IRS is still illegally withholding hundreds of pages of incriminating documents, what has been disclosed is shocking. The documents confirm that, but for the illegal interference of the IRS, my bank never would have been shut down. The OCIF Commissioner would have approved the sale to Qenta as planned, and no customers would have been denied access to their deposits for even one second.I
t was IRS agents who came up with the plan to close the bank and announce the action at a press conference, to create the false impression that my bank was guilty of tax evasion and money laundering, for the sole purpose of using the action as a publicity stunt to bolster the public image of the J5, which, thus far, did not have any actual enforcement successes.
So, they wanted to use OCIF and the media to pretend that their failed investigation of my bank was their first success. The investigation was a failure because the bank was not actually committing any of the tax or money laundering crimes it had been investigated for.
So, to save face, they got the OCIF Commissioner to come up with a pretense to close the bank. Then, all J5 partners issued press releases and disseminated misleading information to their media partners to create the false impression that my bank was guilty of money laundering and tax evasion, and take credit for shutting it down.
https://x.com/PeterSchiff/status/1867919549590376463
t was IRS agents who came up with the plan to close the bank and announce the action at a press conference, to create the false impression that my bank was guilty of tax evasion and money laundering, for the sole purpose of using the action as a publicity stunt to bolster the public image of the J5, which, thus far, did not have any actual enforcement successes.
So, they wanted to use OCIF and the media to pretend that their failed investigation of my bank was their first success. The investigation was a failure because the bank was not actually committing any of the tax or money laundering crimes it had been investigated for.
So, to save face, they got the OCIF Commissioner to come up with a pretense to close the bank. Then, all J5 partners issued press releases and disseminated misleading information to their media partners to create the false impression that my bank was guilty of money laundering and tax evasion, and take credit for shutting it down.
https://x.com/PeterSchiff/status/1867919549590376463
Interesting information you have given but how does any of this help customers get their money back? That should be top priority above self interest.
exactly. In fact its just slowing the process. Maybe Peter Schiff can elaborate why Qenta and Mr de Jong were rejected to buy EPB?
Maybe because
- he was not disclosing audited financials of his group
- had business interests in sanctioned and grey listed jurisdictions?
Therefore was not deemed fit and proper to hold a bank.
(I am just quoting info from 9fraud.com) see
https://9fraud.com/ocif-denial-of-transfer-of-control-letter/
His swiss company was struck off in November from the register in Geneva
http://app2.ge.ch/ecohrcinternet/extract?lang=FR&companyOfsUid=CHE-211.843.050
That's false. De Jong resubmitted his financial is the form OCIF required. He never did business in a sanctioned county. That was a case of mistaken identity which was cleared up with OCIF. He was never deemed unfit. The evidence shows that OCIF was prepared to approve the sale until the IRS intervened. They wanted the sale rejected and the bank shutdown to use it as a PR stunt to bolster the internaiotnal reputation of the J5. I can't do anything to get the receiver to move faster, or to get OCIF to push him. I tried many times, then gave up. This lawsuit is all I can do. It is exposing the illegal nature of what happened. The customers have an excellent lawsuit if they want to file one. I can't file on their behalf. So I am doing what I can on my end, not only to recover my personal losses, which are far larger than customers losses, but to expose the illegal nature of what the J5 did, not just to me, but to all of the bank's innocent customers.
Stop attacking people might help oh wonder.
I have been involved in several banking liquidations and constantly attacking everyone is just slowing the process
Worldcheck only shows one guy with that name so pretty unrealistic that its a mistaken identity case.
I have been involved in several banking liquidations and constantly attacking everyone is just slowing the process
Worldcheck only shows one guy with that name so pretty unrealistic that its a mistaken identity case.
It was, and OCIF was provided all of the information to prove it. OCIF never alleged that proof was insufficient.
ever heard that fit and proper checks are DISCRETIONARY? You can't force them to accept your buyer...
Qenta was far more qualified than the Receiver they appointed to run the bank, who had no prior banking experience. But there were other buyers too. OCIF refused to consider any of them. One group was lead by a former OCIF Commissioner and included several former OCIF executives. They were willing to contribute more capital, and guarantee the protection of all customers. But the OCIF Commissioner made a deal with the IRS to shut the bank down, even though a shut down was unnecessary given all the better alternative available. I don't understand why you are upset with me. I did nothing wrong. Neither did any of the bank's employees. All the wrongdoing was done by the IRS, the J5, and the OCIF Commissioner. So direct your anger and frustration at them, not me.
My line of argument is sound. Why else would the OCIF Commissioner have turned down the sale to Qenta after having enthusiastically supporting it? If the bank needed more capital, why did OCIF never ask the bank to supply it.? Why did the OCIF Commissioner turn down my offer to add $7 million in capital in Nov of 2021? Why was there a press conference to announce the closure of the bank, when OCIF had never called a press conference in its history? Why was IRS Chief Jim Lee even there, or the other J5 Chiefs, if OCIF acted independently, and they had nothing to do with that action? Why does the J5 still refer to my bank as "the bank they had suspected of facilitating money laundering and tax evasion." They actually starting investigating the bank in 2018. So its been 7 years. If there was any evidence to confirm those suspicions, you would think they would have found it by now.
Regarding Peter Schiff comments:
1) he was obviously wrong when he stated above that he was suing the receiver in his “personal and professional capacity”. Martin , who also read the published lawsuit asked Peter why he made this inaccuracy on purpose but never got an answer from Peter
2: Peter, like most very wealthy men his age likely has a significant ego and is therefore sure that “because of the significant spotlight” now put on the receiver because of the lawsuit he “will likely speed up the liquidation “. I think Peter is terrible wrong here and the most likely case now is that the receiver will stall further as officially he “can’t initiate any liquidation while there is an ongoing lawsuit concerning the bank “
3: it is a shame that Peter always claims he doesn’t know what the current status is about the liquidation . He knows management of qenta intricately and could just call them . Of course Peter doesn’t reveal everything he knows !
4: it sounds fishy to me that Peter after 2.5 years “suddenly “ finds out that he could in fact sue Ocif in “his capacity as a shareholder and not as a director “. And even more that he decides to sue just a few weeks after the receiver announced (on October , 11th ) that initiating the liquidation was to happen “in the upcoming weeks “.
Don’t get me wrong . I admire Peter in many ways . But he doesn’t have 100% the same interest as the customers and he is a good sales man !
1) he was obviously wrong when he stated above that he was suing the receiver in his “personal and professional capacity”. Martin , who also read the published lawsuit asked Peter why he made this inaccuracy on purpose but never got an answer from Peter
2: Peter, like most very wealthy men his age likely has a significant ego and is therefore sure that “because of the significant spotlight” now put on the receiver because of the lawsuit he “will likely speed up the liquidation “. I think Peter is terrible wrong here and the most likely case now is that the receiver will stall further as officially he “can’t initiate any liquidation while there is an ongoing lawsuit concerning the bank “
3: it is a shame that Peter always claims he doesn’t know what the current status is about the liquidation . He knows management of qenta intricately and could just call them . Of course Peter doesn’t reveal everything he knows !
4: it sounds fishy to me that Peter after 2.5 years “suddenly “ finds out that he could in fact sue Ocif in “his capacity as a shareholder and not as a director “. And even more that he decides to sue just a few weeks after the receiver announced (on October , 11th ) that initiating the liquidation was to happen “in the upcoming weeks “.
Don’t get me wrong . I admire Peter in many ways . But he doesn’t have 100% the same interest as the customers and he is a good sales man !
Latest Threads
-
-
-
Offshore company (in or out of EU) with EU residency only
- Started by Delta
- Replies: 4
-
Tax optimization and lifestyle in 2025 for 8 figures wealth.
- Started by toums
- Replies: 0
-
