Our valued sponsor

Unique Payment

Euro Pacific bank is a scam

#2,401
Register now
You must login or register to view hidden content on this page.
This will be my last message for the foreseeable future:

Noone says Qenta is a scam as the company exists and is seemingly operating.
But let´s face it:
  • Numerous key players have confirmed that the delay now is because of Qenta and funds at Qenta are NOT segregated. Why would they be? It is not standard for banks/financial institutions to segregate funds AND no one demanded it! Not a single opt-in customers thought about this. They just thought “I am going to be an opt-in and I will be paid back quicker”. Zero due diligence / concerns about counterparty risk.
  • Qenta: . A company barely with any products when the liquidation started (its first product came in 2021 as they say on the webpage). Hence a start-up
  • Qenta: Does digital products and opens tons of offices globally. Imagine how much cash that burns AND (like bitcoin, say) anything digital is just high high high risk / speculative
  • Add to that the numerous other red flags rgd. Qenta pointed out by smart people in this forum. And notice that the receiver WILL point you to Qenta IF you are and opt-in. People have been seperated long time ago!
  • Peter Schiff now vanished and is unlikely to return to this forum. He was the creator of this opt-in concept that never made any sense. His only comment (from last week) was that Qenta was good for people “without a bank account” (makes no sense: I bet that all customers had a secondary account besides EPB – as long as same beneficial owner it is OK, look at other liquidations) and that otherwise OCIF would “take the funds” (makes no sense either, as was pointed out this would take at least a few years). Schiff makes many inaccurate statements that sound good “in a sales context” but are actually very flawed! Just like the comment that the receiver "is incompetent as he does not have any banking experience" (also wrong as not relevant. You dont need a particular industry experience to be a liquidator) or that the receiver "should have looked at potential EPB buyers" (also wrong, not a liquidators job)
  • You guys remember the charming sales pitch Qenta did in autumn 2022 to everyone? Compare that to now where you won’t get an answer from Qenta! - the so-called “highly qualified buyer” as Schiff, the Qenta shareholder, always states.
Something truly smells bad- but reach out to the stakeholders if you don’t believe me!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: john8899
#2,402
James123456 said:
Hi Radko –

  • I invite you to contact the receiver/Qenta. We are a large group, and we have had certain confirmations.
  • The 4.15% ownership (Schiff in Qenta) is a fact that has been confirmed from several sources - even Schiff himself:
“My continued tie to the bank that resulted from my 4.15% ownership of Qenta stock” (https://www.offshorecorptalk.com/threads/euro-pacific-bank-is-a-scam.30470/page-46)

”She turned down the sale to Qenta due to my 4.15% ownership of Qenta stock.” ( https://www.offshorecorptalk.com/threads/euro-pacific-bank-is-a-scam.30470/page-57)

But as opt-in clients now face the risk of DISASTER with the start-up company QENTA, Schiff told us not to worry too much, as it is just part of life to lose money:

“Life is full of risks. Many banks fail, and if deposits are uninsured, customers can lose a lot of money” (https://www.offshorecorptalk.com/threads/euro-pacific-bank-is-a-scam.30470/page-34)
Click to expand...

The 4.5% ownership of Qenta was part of the deal.
In other words, had the sale of EPB gone through, Peter would have received money and shares of Qenta, but the deal did NOT go through.
So Peter ended up with zero shares of Qenta, he lost the bank, and everything that was involved in the deal.
Although this is completely irrelevant for customers.

And, if there is now some sort of problem with Qenta and the liquidation of EPB, they should make it public.
Obviously the Receiver/OCIF feel comfortable working with Qenta to liquidate EPB.

But don't get me wrong, I've never liked Qenta. I was very disappointed when Qenta was announced as the company that was going to buy EPB.
I even made a few comments on this forum many months ago asking if Qenta could be trusted, but to say that Qenta is somehow going to steal the funds, is a very bold statement.

Time will tell...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marie Manila, Vqn and ilke
#2,404
Guys please don't publish peoples personal cellphone numbers etc. I have had to edit posts to remove them.

Thanks


P.S Also in terms of Qenta, PS stated the below himself.

Pschiff said:
As soon as OCIF approved the sale of the bank, Qenta was required to deposit $7 million in cash into the bank. That would have rasied total capital to about $10 million. That was millions more than the bank needed to be fully compliant with OCIF's rules. Also, I was to receive 130 shares of Qenta stock, three million in cash and two million worth of G-coin. The G-coin quantity was fixed at $1,800 gold. So those G-coin would be worth about $2.7 million today.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ilke and NorthernDutchman
#2,405
SCHLOSSFINANZ said:
2) Qenta was not-fit-and proper (look at 9fraud.com a site from PS apparently) where OCIF wrote to PS lawyers that Qenta was not disclosing needed information and tried to hide business dealings in Bosnia Herzegovina (FATF grey listed) and Syria (FATF black listed)
Click to expand...


Hi Guys as @SCHLOSSFINANZ suggested in some posts back. You guys really need to look at 9fraud.com website and documents starting from page 11 and work your way forward to 2024.

https://9fraud.com/category/exhibit/page/11/

All the internal stuff i.e below is worrying or just disgruntled ex-employee? :oops::

https://9fraud.com/email-from-former-euro-pacific-bank-it-manager-to-peter-schiff/

It looks to me that problems with bank go way back.
 
#2,406
Peter Schiff is probably so well known among people who are critical of the existing monetary system because he criticizes it very frequently, articulately, emphatically and with great reach. For many of them, it was therefore not a far cry when he founded his EPB.

But his lawsuit against the IRS/J5 and others is not about him as a former owner. Instead, he explicitly appears here (https://9fraud.com/civil-rights-claim/ , page. 30) as a 'shareholder and owner for his personal loss'. It also says: 'this claim does not relate to any damage suffered by Euro Pacific Bank, but only to that damage suffered by Mr. Schiff personally'.

So if any ex-customers of EPB have personal expectations and hopes attached to this claim: this is in no way about them! Mr. Schiff is only concerned with himself. And only about one thing: money! A lot of money!

If, against this background, the suicide of a former EPB customer is invoked in the statement of claim to support the conspiracy narrative, I frankly consider this to be tasteless.
 
#2,407
So we have a 100% reserve bank that was apparently in severe capital difficulties in 2021. How can that be? The plaintiff already wants to sell it at this point. In August 2022, however, these difficulties no longer exist (p.27, (5)), https://9fraud.com/civil-rights-claim), but very significant amounts of capital have flowed out.
Peter Schiff's lawsuit seeks + USD 56 million in damages from the defendants.
The narrative of the lawsuit emphasizes the role of EPB as a liquidated bank that was driven there by a conspiracy. The plaint states:
Tuesday Sept. 21st 2021 (page 24, k)), https://9fraud.com/civil-rights-claim) plaintiff meets with OCIF to discuss the bank's losses, which would have resulted from the negative press due to the Atlantis investigation, to sell the bank, including its banking license (page 5, e) et seq.), or merge. At this point, the plaintiff already seems so convinced that he wants to get rid of his bank that he even offers OCIF to liquidate EPB itself if a sale or merger does not work out.
Nov/10/2021 (page 9, g)) a meeting is held for the sale as a stock sale with OCIF, which would have brought the plaintiff USD 17.5 million in 2022. EPB was to go to Qenta, making Peter Schiff a shareholder there, among others. The negotiations lead the plaintiff to offer a capital injection of USD 7 million for the bank in order to allow the deal to go ahead.
Subsequently, OCIF offers Mr. Peter Schiff to sell the bank as an asset sale for only USD 1.25 million (p.6, i)
By June 30th, 2022, the plaintiff again does not believe that the IRS is investigating EPB and him as bank owner. (page 4, b) ff.). On this day, the press conference takes place that changes everything.
On Aug. 9th, 2022, the plaintiff signs a deal with OCIF for a 90-day liquidation period of EPB (p.28, m))
Putting things in perspective in general: A rate hike by the FED was already under discussion during above mentioned time period and it finally happened in March 2022: the Fed raises interest rates in 11 steps, in the steepest interest rate hike in its history. Peter Schiff’s regular reflections about the FED make me think whether this development could have been a key motivator to get rid of EPB almost at any cost?
 
  • Like
Reactions: john8899 and Alpinist
#2,408
Shouldn't the (former) management and owners of EPB have fiduciary duty to the "depositors" at the "bank"? If so, given the discussion over the last few pages as well as the questionable practices of the former management and the way the bank was run, would it make sense for customers to launch a class action against the former management and owners?

For those who are attacking those who bring up these questions and doubts about Schiff and the management of EP and defending him blindly, does it not seem strange that the guy likes to attack the FDIC and the government for the so-called "moral hazard", and then when the bank collapsed, he just said, well it's too bad, depositors knew EPB was not FDIC isured and took the risk?

Just look at the reviews for Euro Pacific Capital: https://topratedfirms.com/brokers/customer/europacificcapital-review.aspx
His FINRA check says he go into trouble with the NFA in 1990 for "cheat, fraud, deceived customers" and he settled with them: https://files.brokercheck.finra.org/individual/individual_1759484.pdf (page 12)

I think too many people who joined EPB were listened too much to his podcasts and assumed he was helping you. No, he's not. He just wants your money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wotduaino
#2,409
What is almost amusing when you read Peter Schiff's statement of claim is that he opposes the OCIF of Puerto Rico in a way that makes you wonder why he still lives in Puerto Rico at all and why he runs his other companies from there? Companies such as SchiffSovereign (Schiff Sovereign LLC 151 Calle San Francisco Ste 200 San Juan 00901 Puerto Rico ) and Euro Pacific Asset Management (Lots 81-82, Street C, Suite 206 Dorado, Puerto Rico 00646). After all, his lawsuit is based on the allegation of a conspiracy. A conspiracy is a secret collaboration of several persons to the detriment of third parties. The element of secrecy, of non-provability, is central. So either he is convinced that he can demonstrably convict all those involved - in the case of the OCIF this would be Ms. N. Zequeira (OCIF commissioner) or Mr. Lugo-Mender (official receiver) - and after their removal everything will be fine again in the tax haven of Puerto Rico? Or will he have to mutate into a little-liked person there? Because then he would have attacked the home base of his own man-in-the-middle companies in such a way that he would be almost unacceptable for Puerto Rico in and of itself? But maybe I'm wrong according to 'money doesn't stink'.
 
#2,410
john8899 said:
Shouldn't the (former) management and owners of EPB have fiduciary duty to the "depositors" at the "bank"? If so, given the discussion over the last few pages as well as the questionable practices of the former management and the way the bank was run, would it make sense for customers to launch a class action against the former management and owners?

For those who are attacking those who bring up these questions and doubts about Schiff and the management of EP and defending him blindly, does it not seem strange that the guy likes to attack the FDIC and the government for the so-called "moral hazard", and then when the bank collapsed, he just said, well it's too bad, depositors knew EPB was not FDIC isured and took the risk?

Just look at the reviews for Euro Pacific Capital: https://topratedfirms.com/brokers/customer/europacificcapital-review.aspx
His FINRA check says he go into trouble with the NFA in 1990 for "cheat, fraud, deceived customers" and he settled with them: https://files.brokercheck.finra.org/individual/individual_1759484.pdf (page 12)

I think too many people who joined EPB were listened too much to his podcasts and assumed he was helping you. No, he's not. He just wants your money.
Click to expand...
I agree with the above! To me, first and foremost: EPB was in financial trouble already by 2021. Why is a full reserve bank in financial trouble? To use the ´bad press' as an excuse argument is almost ridiculous! The so called IRS-led press-conference came later, in June 2022! So we have financial trouble first and IRS/J5 next!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Martin Everson
#2,411
In his lawsuit, Peter Schiff is claiming damages of more than USD 56 million. Not in his role and therefore his responsibilities as the former owner of EPB, but merely as a private shareholder.
OCIF, in turn, has decided that his bank will be liquidated. As a result, he will receive almost nothing.
EPB's former customers are therefore currently dependent on the receiver, who is described by Mr. Schiff on p.24, i) (https://9fraud.com/civil-rights-claim) as essentially incompetent, as he has no banking experience. I consider this assertion to be completely far-fetched, as it is the nature of any insolvency administration to have to deal with banks when a company is being wound up or dismantled.
On the other hand, if you look at how US law regulates (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/326) or limits the remuneration of the insolvency administrator, you can see that Mr. Lugo-Mender has so far stayed within the bounds of this. Yes, it is a lot of money, but it is not yet clear from the accounts he has audited that he is overspending.
For former customers, the following picture therefore emerges, roughly speaking: either the insolvency administrator breaks up the bank and the customers see some of their deposits again at some point. Or Peter Schiff makes off as a private individual with a huge sum in damages and leaves his former customers astonished, who are left to fend for themselves. Against the background of Mr. Schiff's constant and intense projections of a full-reserve bank, a tough pill to swallow!
 
#2,412
Wotduaino said:
In his lawsuit, Peter Schiff is claiming damages of more than USD 56 million. Not in his role and therefore his responsibilities as the former owner of EPB, but merely as a private shareholder.
OCIF, in turn, has decided that his bank will be liquidated. As a result, he will receive almost nothing.
EPB's former customers are therefore currently dependent on the receiver, who is described by Mr. Schiff on p.24, i) (https://9fraud.com/civil-rights-claim) as essentially incompetent, as he has no banking experience. I consider this assertion to be completely far-fetched, as it is the nature of any insolvency administration to have to deal with banks when a company is being wound up or dismantled.
On the other hand, if you look at how US law regulates (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/326) or limits the remuneration of the insolvency administrator, you can see that Mr. Lugo-Mender has so far stayed within the bounds of this. Yes, it is a lot of money, but it is not yet clear from the accounts he has audited that he is overspending.
For former customers, the following picture therefore emerges, roughly speaking: either the insolvency administrator breaks up the bank and the customers see some of their deposits again at some point. Or Peter Schiff makes off as a private individual with a huge sum in damages and leaves his former customers astonished, who are left to fend for themselves. Against the background of Mr. Schiff's constant and intense projections of a full-reserve bank, a tough pill to swallow!
Click to expand...
Hello,

Just for my understanding here.
It sounds like Peter Schiff is suing to get his hands on the depositors funds now he knows the reciever retrieved tham or am I wrong?
 
#2,420
Vqn said:
But lets say he wins this lawsuit … Would you think it’s paid by the depositors funds?
Click to expand...
1000% no - according to my experience and professional knowledge
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vqn
Register now
You must login or register to view hidden content on this page.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum Announcement

Latest Threads

The Kingdom Bank
Top Bottom
Back