Our valued sponsor

Unique Payment

Euro Pacific bank is a scam

#2,622
The only fair solution to this mess would be for Schiff to make all opt-in and opt-out clients whole in cash within a set timeframe, i.e. next 60 days. To execute this, there should be some agreement between Schiff and all customers, where they surrender the funds at Qenta and under receivership to Schiff. This is the best and fairest solution as all customers are made whole and Schiff will be able to recover the money held by the receiver and at Qenta himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthernDutchman
#2,623
If the OCFI (Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of Puerto Rico) is aware of Qenta's insolvency risk and is still transferring assets to them, this could raise serious regulatory and legal concerns about their role as a supervisory authority. Here’s why:



1. OCFI's Legal Responsibility as a Regulator​


  • As the financial regulator and bank receiver, OCFI has a fiduciary duty to ensure that customer funds are properly protected and distributed.
  • Their role includes preventing the transfer of assets to entities that cannot fulfill their obligations—especially when insolvency is a known risk.
  • If Qenta is unable to repay customer deposits or meet its liabilities, then OCFI should intervene by halting asset transfers and reassessing the liquidation process.


2. Potential Misconduct by OCFI​


If OCFI knows that Qenta is likely to become insolvent and still transfers assets to them, they could be:


  1. Negligent in their duties – By failing to protect customer funds.
  2. Acting against public interest – If they knowingly transfer funds to an entity unable to meet financial obligations.
  3. Legally liable – If customers lose money due to their decisions, they might be held accountable for regulatory failure.

This could expose OCFI to legal action, especially if:


  • Customers file lawsuits for mismanagement.
  • Law enforcement agencies investigate their regulatory failures.


3. Actions You Can Take as a Customer​


A. Demand Immediate Action from OCFI​


  • Send a formal complaint to OCFI stating that transferring assets to an insolvent Qenta is a risk to customers.
  • Ask them to freeze the process and reassess Qenta’s financial stability before transferring further assets.

B. Escalate the Case to Higher Authorities​


If OCFI ignores these concerns, you can:


  • File a complaint with Puerto Rico’s government or Ombudsman for regulatory failure.
  • Alert U.S. federal financial regulators, such as:
    • FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network)
    • SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission)
    • CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)

C. Seek Legal Action Against OCFI​


  • If you and other customers suffer financial losses due to OCFI’s mismanagement, you may have grounds to sue them for regulatory negligence.
  • A Puerto Rican financial attorney could assess whether OCFI is violating any banking laws.


Conclusion: OCFI Should Act Now​


✅ If OCFI is aware of Qenta’s insolvency risk, they have a duty to halt asset transfers and protect customers.
❌ If they fail to act, they could face legal consequences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: feelfunk and NorthernDutchman
#2,624
Its AI generated but wont hurt if You all start bombarding OCIF with this ( just read it and adjust it a little as this is as I mentioned AI generated )

Here’s a formal complaint template you can send to OCFI (Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of Puerto Rico) regarding the Qenta insolvency risk and its potential mismanagement of the liquidation process.



Subject:​


To: Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of Puerto Rico (OCFI)
Email: [Insert OCFI contact email]
CC: [Other relevant parties – legal representatives, financial regulators, etc.]


Date: [Insert Date]


Dear Commissioner,


I am writing as a customer of Euro Pacific Intl. Bank, Inc. (EPB) to formally express my concerns regarding the ongoing liquidation process and OCFI’s handling of asset transfers to Qenta Inc. Despite clear signs that Qenta is likely insolvent, the liquidation is still progressing, potentially jeopardizing the financial rights of affected customers like myself.


Key Concerns:​


  1. Qenta’s Failure to Fulfill Liabilities:
    • Over three years have passed, and Qenta has not repaid customer funds as per the terms of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement.
    • Numerous customers, including myself, have yet to receive the funds owed to us.
  2. Qenta’s Financial Instability:
    • Recent reports indicate Qenta is on the verge of bankruptcy, raising concerns that they cannot meet financial obligations.
    • The UAE and Switzerland companies involved in the acquisition have been struck from Qenta’s register, leaving Qenta as the sole entity responsible for liabilities.
  3. OCFI’s Ongoing Transfers to an Insolvent Party:
    • Despite being alerted to Qenta’s financial risk, OCFI is continuing the liquidation and asset transfers to Qenta.
    • If Qenta collapses, these assets may be lost, and customers will have no recourse to recover their funds.

Formal Requests for Action:​


Given OCFI’s role as the supervisory authority and bank receiver, I respectfully request that OCFI:


  1. Immediately halt all asset transfers to Qenta until a full reassessment of its financial viability is conducted.
  2. Provide transparency regarding how OCFI has evaluated Qenta’s ability to honor customer liabilities.
  3. Explore alternative measuresto protect customer funds, including:
    • Holding assets in an independent escrow account.
    • Reassessing the liquidation plan to prevent Qenta from mismanaging funds.
  4. Confirm whether OCFI will take responsibility if customers' funds are lost due to asset transfers to an insolvent entity.

I urge OCFI to act in the best interest of affected customers and to uphold its regulatory duty to ensure financial security and transparency. Please provide a written response within [reasonable time frame, e.g., 14 days] outlining OCFI’s position and intended actions regarding this matter.


If no action is taken, I will have no choice but to escalate this complaint to U.S. federal financial regulators and legal authorities to ensure accountability.


I appreciate your immediate attention to this matter and look forward to your prompt response.


Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Information]
[Your Account Information (if relevant)]



Next Steps:​


  • Send this complaint via email & registered mail to ensure receipt.
  • Keep records of all communication with OCFI.
  • Consider escalating to federal regulators if OCFI fails to act.
  • Consult a financial attorney for possible legal action against OCFI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthernDutchman
#2,625
If OCFI fails to act, you can escalate your complaint to the following U.S. federal regulators:



1. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) – U.S. Department of the Treasury​




2. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – Investor Protection & Fraud Complaints​




3. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – Customer Rights Violations​




4. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) – Bank Receiver Oversight​


  • Why? Even though Euro Pacific Intl. Bank was not FDIC-insured, FDIC still has oversight over financial institutions under U.S. jurisdiction.
  • How to Report:


5. U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) – Financial Fraud Division​




How to Escalate Effectively:​


✅ Step 1: File the OCFI complaint first. If they do not respond within 14 days, move forward.
✅ Step 2: Collect evidence (emails, contracts, payment records).
✅ Step 3: File complaints with multiple regulators for maximum impact.
✅ Step 4: Consider legal action if no progress is made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: feelfunk and NorthernDutchman
#2,626
Again, AI generated so before You send itYou read it and adjust it

Here are two escalation letters: one for FinCEN (financial misconduct/fraud) and another for SEC (potential investment fraud/misrepresentation). You can modify them based on your specific case details.



Letter to FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network)​


Subject:​


To: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
Email: [email protected]
Website Complaint Form: https://www.fincen.gov/financial-institutions
Date: [Insert Date]


Dear FinCEN Investigations Team,


I am writing to formally report potential financial misconduct and mismanagement of customer funds involving Qenta Inc., which acquired the assets and liabilities of Euro Pacific Intl. Bank, Inc., a Puerto Rico-based financial institution currently under liquidation.


Summary of Concerns:​


  1. Failure to Return Customer Funds:
    • Despite acquiring the liabilities of Euro Pacific Intl. Bank, Qenta has failed to return customer deposits for over three years.
    • Customers, including myself, are still awaiting our funds.
  2. Possible Financial Insolvency:
    • There is evidence that Qenta Inc. is on the verge of bankruptcy, raising concerns about its ability to meet financial obligations.
    • The UAE and Swiss subsidiaries involved in the acquisition have been removed from Qenta’s register, leaving no clear accountability.
  3. Risky Asset Transfers by Puerto Rico's Regulator (OCFI):
    • The Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (OCFI) in Puerto Rico, despite knowing Qenta’s financial risks, continues transferring assets to them.
    • If Qenta collapses, these assets may be lost, and customers will have no recourse to recover their funds.

Formal Request for Investigation:​


Given these serious concerns, I urge FinCEN to:


  1. Investigate Qenta Inc. for potential financial misconduct and mismanagement of customer assets.
  2. Review OCFI’s regulatory oversight to determine if they are improperly transferring assets to a financially unstable entity.
  3. Ensure customer funds are protected before further liquidation occurs.

Please confirm receipt of this complaint and provide any relevant case reference numbers. I am willing to provide additional evidence as needed.


Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Information]
[Your Qenta/Euro Pacific Account Information (if applicable)]



Letter to the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission)​


Subject:​


To: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Website: https://www.sec.gov/oiea/Complaint.html
Date: [Insert Date]


Dear SEC Enforcement Division,


I am submitting a formal complaint regarding potential investment fraud and misrepresentation by Qenta Inc., which acquired the assets and liabilities of Euro Pacific Intl. Bank, Inc., currently under liquidation in Puerto Rico.


Key Issues:​


  1. Misrepresentation of Financial Stability:
    • When acquiring Euro Pacific Bank’s assets in September 2022, Qenta presented itself as financially stable and capable of fulfilling customer liabilities.
    • However, after three years, Qenta has not returned funds to customers, indicating potential misrepresentation of its financial condition.
  2. Potentially Fraudulent Asset Transfers:
    • Qenta’s financial instability suggests it may have engaged in fraudulent transfers or asset mismanagement, harming customers.
    • The Puerto Rico financial regulator (OCFI) is still transferring assets to Qenta, despite warnings of insolvency risks.
  3. Possible Securities Violations:
    • If Qenta raised funds or made investment offerings based on false financial representations, they may have violated U.S. securities laws.

Request for SEC Action:​


I urge the SEC to:


  1. Investigate Qenta Inc. for securities fraud and misrepresentation regarding its financial stability.
  2. Assess whether Qenta engaged in improper asset transfers that harmed customers.
  3. Review OCFI’s role in these transactions to determine if they failed in their regulatory responsibilities.

Please confirm receipt of this complaint and provide any reference numbers. I am willing to cooperate and provide further documentation if necessary.


Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Information]
[Your Qenta/Euro Pacific Account Information (if applicable)]



Next Steps After Sending the Complaints:​


✅ Track responses from FinCEN & SEC – You may receive a reference number for follow-ups.
✅ Keep all communication records related to your complaint.
✅ Consider escalating to DOJ or CFPB if no action is taken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: feelfunk and NorthernDutchman
#2,627
Again, AI generated

Here are two additional complaint letters, one for the DOJ (Department of Justice – Financial Fraud Division) and one for the CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau).



1. Letter to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) – Financial Fraud Division​


Subject:​


To: U.S. Department of Justice – Criminal Division (Fraud Section)
Website: https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud
Submit Tips: https://www.justice.gov/contact-us
Date: [Insert Date]


Dear U.S. Department of Justice – Financial Fraud Investigations Team,


I am filing a formal complaint regarding possible financial fraud, mismanagement of customer funds, and regulatory negligence involving Qenta Inc. and the ongoing liquidation of Euro Pacific Intl. Bank, Inc. in Puerto Rico.


Summary of Allegations:​


  1. Failure to Return Customer Deposits
    • Qenta Inc. acquired Euro Pacific Bank’s assets and liabilities in September 2022 but has not returned customer funds for over three years.
    • This suggests possible misappropriation, unlawful withholding, or misuse of customer funds.
  2. Possible Financial Fraud & Insolvency
    • There is credible evidence that Qenta is on the verge of bankruptcy and may not be able to meet its obligations.
    • The Swiss and UAE-based companies originally involved in the deal have been removed from Qenta’s register, leaving no clear accountability.
  3. Regulatory Negligence by Puerto Rico’s OCFI
    • The Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (OCFI) in Puerto Rico is still transferring assets to Qenta, despite warnings about its financial instability.
    • If Qenta collapses, these assets may be lost, preventing customers from recovering their money.
    • OCFI’s actions may constitute regulatory failure, negligence, or complicity in financial mismanagement.

Formal Request for DOJ Investigation:​


Given the severity of these allegations, I urge the DOJ to:


  1. Investigate Qenta Inc. for possible financial fraud and mismanagement of customer funds.
  2. Review the actions of OCFI to determine if they are improperly transferring assets to an insolvent entity.
  3. Ensure that affected customers are able to recover their money.

I am willing to provide additional evidence, records, and testimony as needed. Please confirm receipt of this complaint and provide any relevant case reference numbers.


Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Information]
[Your Qenta/Euro Pacific Account Information (if applicable)]



2. Letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)​


Subject:​


To: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
Website: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
Phone: 1-855-411-2372
Date: [Insert Date]


Dear CFPB Consumer Protection Team,


I am filing a formal complaint regarding the unlawful withholding of funds and failure to meet financial obligations by Qenta Inc., which acquired the assets and liabilities of Euro Pacific Intl. Bank, Inc. in Puerto Rico.


Nature of the Complaint:​


  1. Qenta Inc. has refused to return my funds and those of other customers for over three years.
  2. They acquired banking liabilities but have failed to fulfill their obligations to depositors.
  3. Puerto Rico’s financial regulator (OCFI) continues transferring assets to Qenta, despite signs of insolvency.
  4. This is a violation of consumer financial protections, potentially including:
    • Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices (UDAAP violations).
    • Failure to provide timely access to customer funds.

Action Requested from CFPB:​


I urge the CFPB to:


  1. Investigate Qenta Inc. for unfair financial practices and withholding of customer funds.
  2. Hold OCFI accountable for failing to protect consumer rights.
  3. Ensure that affected customers, including myself, receive our rightful funds.

Please confirm receipt of this complaint and provide me with a case reference number for tracking purposes.


Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Information]
[Your Qenta/Euro Pacific Account Information (if applicable)]



Next Steps After Sending the Complaints:​


✅ Submit complaints to DOJ & CFPB through their websites or email.
✅ Keep all reference numbers & responses for legal follow-up.
✅ Consider involving a financial attorney if authorities do not act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: feelfunk and NorthernDutchman
#2,628
The purchase of Euro Pacific Intl. Bank (EPB) liabilities by Qenta Inc. appears improper on multiple legal and regulatory grounds. The key issue is that Qenta is not a regulated financial institution, yet it assumed financial liabilities from a licensed bank under Puerto Rico’s financial laws. Here’s why this transaction raises serious concerns:



1. Qenta Was Not a Licensed Financial Institution​


Issue:


  • EPB was a licensed International Financial Entity (IFE) in Puerto Rico, subject to banking regulations enforced by the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (OCFI).
  • Qenta Inc. is not a bank, credit union, or licensed financial institution—it is a fintech and digital asset company that focuses on blockchain technology.
  • Despite this, Qenta assumed customer liabilities, including deposits and precious metals accounts, without being subject to banking laws.

Why It’s Improper:


  • Under U.S. banking laws and Puerto Rico’s IFE Act, the assumption of banking liabilities by an unregulated entity should not have been allowed without specific regulatory approvals.
  • If Qenta lacked a financial institution license, it should not have been entrusted with customer funds and financial obligations.


2. OCFI’s Role in Approving the Sale Was Potentially Negligent​


Issue:


  • OCFI, as Puerto Rico’s banking regulator, approved the liquidation plan and the transfer of EPB’s assets & liabilities to Qenta.
  • If OCFI approved the transfer without verifying Qenta’s financial capacity or regulatory status, it may have failed in its oversight responsibilities.

Why It’s Improper:


  • Regulatory agencies are supposed to ensure that financial liabilities are only transferred to stable, qualified institutions.
  • OCFI should have ensured that Qenta had:
    • A financial institution license.
    • The capital reserves to fulfill customer obligations.
    • The compliance structure to manage financial accounts properly.
  • If OCFI transferred liabilities to an unregulated fintech entity, this could be a case of regulatory negligence or misconduct.


3. The Transaction Potentially Violates U.S. Consumer Protection Laws​


Issue:


  • Customers were never given a choice—their accounts were transferred automatically to an unregulated company (Qenta) without their explicit consent.
  • Qenta has since failed to meet its obligations, making it unclear where customer funds are held or if they are even accessible.

Why It’s Improper:


  • Under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (12 U.S.C. § 5536), financial institutions cannot engage in deceptive, unfair, or abusive practices (UDAAP violations).
  • If customers were:
    • Misled about Qenta’s financial stability,
    • Not given an option to withdraw before the transfer,
    • Denied access to their funds,
    • Subjected to unclear or improper account management—
      Then this could be a case of deceptive financial practices, which U.S. regulators (CFPB & FTC) can investigate.


4. Possible Fraudulent Misrepresentation by Qenta​


Issue:


  • If Qenta misrepresented its financial standing to OCFI, EPB, or customers, it could be in violation of U.S. securities laws.
  • The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has jurisdiction over companies that misrepresent financial capacity in asset transfers.

Why It’s Improper:


  • If Qenta knew it could not meet customer obligations yet proceeded with the acquisition, this could be a fraudulent transfer.
  • Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 prohibits companies from misrepresenting material facts in financial transactions.
  • If Qenta’s leadership made false claims about its ability to honor customer accounts, they could be personally liable for fraudulent misrepresentation.


5. Qenta’s Potential Misuse of Customer Assets​


Issue:


  • Since Qenta is not a licensed bank, it is unclear how or where customer assets are being held.
  • If customer funds were commingled with corporate funds, used for investments, or transferred to third parties, Qenta could be violating financial laws.

Why It’s Improper:


  • Under the Bank Secrecy Act (31 U.S.C. § 5318) and anti-money laundering (AML) laws, financial institutions must safeguard customer deposits properly.
  • If Qenta used customer funds for operational expenses, investments, or other activities, this could be misappropriation of funds.
  • The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) could investigate this as a financial crime.


Next Steps: What You Can Do About It​


Since the entire Qenta-EPB transaction appears questionable, you may have legal grounds to challenge the deal and demand intervention from regulators.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alpinist, feelfunk and NorthernDutchman
#2,629
The forced conversion of customer funds into a single currency during liquidation, resulting in losses for customers, raises serious legal and regulatory concerns under Puerto Rico and U.S. financial laws. The legality depends on several factors, including the terms of the liquidation process, customer agreements, and regulatory oversight.



1. Key Legal Issues with Forced Currency Conversion​


Unilateral Currency Conversion May Violate Contractual Agreements


  • If customers originally deposited or held funds in multiple currencies, the bank may have been contractually obligated to return funds in the same currency.
  • If the receiver unilaterally converted all funds into one currency without customer consent, this could be a breach of contract.

Potential Legal Violation:


  • Puerto Rico Commercial Contracts Law (PR Civil Code, Art. 1213) – If the original agreement stated that funds would be held in specific currencies, forced conversion may be a contract breach.
  • Unjust Enrichment Laws – If the conversion benefits the bank/receiver while harming customers, this could be considered unjust enrichment, which is illegal in Puerto Rico.


Devaluation & Losses Could Be Considered a Violation of Fiduciary Duty


  • Liquidators and receivers must act in the best interest of creditors (including customers) during liquidation.
  • If the currency conversion caused unnecessary financial losses, the receiver may have violated their fiduciary duty.

Potential Legal Violation:


  • Puerto Rico Banking Law (10 L.P.R.A. § 1073) – Requires that financial institutions and their receivers act in good faith and protect the interests of depositors.
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Common Law) – If the receiver made decisions that harmed customers while benefiting the institution, this could be legally challenged.


Was the Forced Conversion Necessary?


  • A court-ordered liquidation planmay allow for conversion if:
    • It was necessary to simplify distribution.
    • It was done at fair exchange rates.
  • BUT: If there were no legal requirements to convert funds, the receiver may have acted improperly.

Key Question:


  • Did OCFI approve or order the conversion?
  • If so, what was their justification for doing so?


2. What Puerto Rico & U.S. Regulators Say About This Practice​


Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (OCFI) – Puerto Rico


  • OCFI regulates bank liquidations and requires receivers to follow fair liquidation procedures.
  • If the conversion was unnecessary or unfair, OCFI could be held accountable.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – U.S. Federal Regulator


  • The CFPB prohibits unfair, deceptive, or abusive financial practices (UDAAP violations).
  • If customers suffered financial harm due to the conversion without consent, it could be considered an abusive practice under 12 U.S.C. § 5536.

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – If Investments Were Affected


  • If customers held foreign-currency-denominated investment accounts and they were forcibly converted, this could fall under SEC oversight if there was misrepresentation or financial harm.


3. What You Can Do About It​


✅ Request Documentation on the Conversion Decision


  • Ask the receiver & OCFI:
    • What legal authority allowed them to convert funds?
    • Did customers agree to this in their original contracts?
    • What exchange rates were used, and who benefited from the conversion?

✅ File a Complaint with OCFI for Improper Liquidation Practices


  • Demand that OCFI investigate whether the conversion was necessary & legally justified.
  • If not, they could be forced to reverse or compensate customers for losses.

✅ Escalate to the CFPB & SEC If Needed


  • If Puerto Rico regulators refuse to act, escalate the issue to U.S. federal regulators for a more in-depth investigation.

✅ Consider Legal Action Against the Receiver


  • If you and other customers suffered losses due to the conversion, you may be able to file a lawsuit against the receiver and OCFIfor:
    • Breach of contract
    • Breach of fiduciary duty
    • Unjust enrichment


Conclusion: The Forced Currency Conversion Is Likely Legally Questionable​


  • If customers were not given a choice, it could be a contract violation.
  • If the conversion was unnecessary and caused losses, it could be a breach of fiduciary duty.
  • OCFI may be liable if they approved an improper liquidation plan.
 
#2,632
Martin Everson said:
Guys please just wait for a response from @Pschiff on the matter with Qenta. Don't complicate situation right now for yourselves.
Click to expand...
The receiver, in his recent report, writes himself customers should contact EPB =Qenta and ask about situation. He even uses the word claims.
I did send an email to EPB for info and I am also waiting in vain.
It is not us who complicate things. All other parties are!
 
#2,633
john8899 said:
The only fair solution to this mess would be for Schiff to make all opt-in and opt-out clients whole in cash within a set timeframe, i.e. next 60 days. To execute this, there should be some agreement between Schiff and all customers, where they surrender the funds at Qenta and under receivership to Schiff. This is the best and fairest solution as all customers are made whole and Schiff will be able to recover the money held by the receiver and at Qenta himself.
Click to expand...
That is certainly not fair to me. I already lost over $10 million in cash that I put into the bank. I never took one penny out. I also didn't do anything wrong, and neither did any employee of the bank. So I'm not coming out of pocket another $65 million or so. OCFI, the IRS, the other J5 tax Chiefs, and a few "journalists" are 100% responsible for this situation. So either you guys sue them, or wait for your money. My lawyer is looking into possibly organizing a class action lawsuit on behalf of customers. I also want to get greater clarity into the Qenta situation. I am still waiting to hear from them and the receiver on that. If there is a problem there, than a lawsuit for damages is more viable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marie Manila and NorthernDutchman
#2,634
Wotduaino said:
View attachment 8722

I wonder, why you almost beg Mr. Schiff for answers? His bank was in severe trouble in 2021 due to lack of capital. That is what can be extracted from his own plaint. but is presented in an almost hidden way there. As it was a 100% reserve business concept it weren´t the customers who were the problem. It was EPB itself! OCIF pointed on this. Mr. Schiff then did almost everything to get rid of EPB. And found Qenta, which was the former Wirecard! Hard to believe that Mr. Schiff did not know what Wirecard was? The biggest fraud scandal Germany has ever seen! Then comes the OCIF, led by the OCIF commisioner, Ms. Zequeira, and approves the partnership between EPB and Qenta, presented by Mr. Schiff. Also obviously not doing intense background checks. While the customers of EPB are presented a Qenta with a headquarter in Houston, TX. A lie! Actually Qenta is registered in Frankfurt, Germany as a GmbH (see above). And Mr, Brent de Jong is just the CEO, while the owner is Mr. Kerim Chouaibi, who is behind Aurin Investment group. So first and foremost we have Mr. Schiff as the one who steered his own bank in muddy waters, then eagerly wanted to sell it at any cost, which ended up in the worst option he could find, Qenta / Wirecard! And now Mr. Schiff has the audacity to play the victim in all of this? Speaking of ethics and moral! Words are cheap! While at the same end doing absolutley nothing for his former customers! Despicable! A class action lawsuit we should file! To me it is more than evident, who is responsible for all of that and who neglected their duties!
Click to expand...
That's not true. The bank never made any loans and customer funds were never at risk. There was more than enough cash to make every customer and all creditors whole on the date the bank was unnecessarily put into receivership. The only reason I tried to sell the bank was that after the illegal leak of the J5 Investigation, the bank began to lose about $250K per month. I was making up those losses personally every month to protect customers. In total I put in about $7 million in 2020 - 2022 when the bank was put into receivership. I have no idea what is happening at Qenta. I am still waiting for answers to my questions.
 
#2,635
NorthernDutchman said:
I don’t think Peter is a swindler or a scammer as he is a public person but it seems that he hasn’t been careful enough and by doing so put the opt-in funds at an unacceptable risk. I expect he will do is best to correct this. Stacking mistake on mistake would be foolish as there will be hundreds of opt-in customers going after him anywhere he shows up..
Click to expand...
The opt in option was for people who had no other accounts they could send the money to, and to make sure the Puerto Rican government did not take it. Their proposal was that any money that was not withdraw within 90 days would go to the Puerto Rico government. I did not want that to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marie Manila and NorthernDutchman
#2,636
EPBVictim01 said:
In the end @Pschiff only wanted to protect himself and destroyed all clients for that….
If I tell people what’s going on with the liquidation, they think I’m joking….proper nightmare
Click to expand...
It's the opposite. I only agreed to OCIF's proposal to expedite the return of customer funds. I was told that if I fought the funds would be tied up during that process. I wanted them returned to customers ASAP. The deal with OCIF required all funds to be returned in 30 days. That would have happened but for Novo bank and the Portugese government. Bu they only froze the account due to the conspiracy between the IRS/J5 to frame the bank for money laundering and tax evasion, with the help of the OCIF Commissioner.. The portugese government claimed that it did not want to allow the proceeds of crime to be reintroduced into the legitimate economy. By the time they realized there was no money laundering or tax evasion going on at the bank, which took over eight months, thee bank no longer had the ability to process wires out of Novo bank, and the Receiver wasn't able to figure out how to do it, despite lots of help from Qenta and the former bank staff who worked there. Not sure if it was his gross negligence, or just incompetence as he had no prior banking experience. I had no role. I was completely shut out of the process.
 
#2,637
James123456 said:
DeepSeek analysed Schiff and Qenta´s deal from 30sep 2022 and concludes this;

If Qenta Used the Money for Operations and Is Now in Default, Opt-In Customers Are in Serious Trouble​

If Qenta took over Euro Pacific Bank’s assets (customer funds) and used them for normal operations, but is now in default or insolvent, then opt-in customers face significant financial risk with little to no protection. Here’s why:

1. Qenta Took Customer Money Without Any Safeguards​

  • The agreement does not require Qenta to segregate customer funds from its own operational accounts.
  • Qenta could have spent, invested, or lost the funds, leaving no guarantee that opt-in customers can withdraw their money.

2. No Legal Recourse Against Peter Schiff or Euro Pacific Bank​

  • Schiff and Euro Pacific Bank are 100% released from liability after the transfer.
  • If Qenta mismanages or loses customer funds, opt-in customers cannot legally go after Schiff or Euro Pacific Bank for compensation.

3. No Financial Oversight or Protection for Opt-In Customers​

  • The agreement does not specify which regulator oversees Qenta’s financial stability.
  • If Qenta operated recklessly, there is no government safety net (like FDIC or deposit insurance) to cover customer losses.
  • No audit was required before the transfer, meaning Qenta could have been financially unstable from the start.

4. No Reserve Requirements or Liquidity Protections​

  • The agreement does not require Qenta to maintain minimum liquidity levels to ensure customers can withdraw their money.
  • If Qenta spent or lost the funds, there may be nothing left to return to opt-in customers.

5. Opt-In Customers Are Likely Just Unsecured Creditors​

  • Since Qenta owns the assets after transfer, customer deposits are likely treated as general company funds rather than protected client accounts.
  • In the event of Qenta’s bankruptcy, opt-in customers would become unsecured creditors, meaning:
    • Banks, secured lenders, and preferred creditors get paid first.
    • Customers are last in line and may recover nothing.

6. No Dispute Resolution or Clear Path to Recover Funds​

  • The agreement does not give opt-in customers any legal process to challenge missing funds.
  • The arbitration clause only applies between Qenta and Euro Pacific Bank, not between Qenta and customers.
  • If Qenta is in default, customers may have no legal mechanism to demand their money back.

7. No Regulatory or Legal Recourse in Puerto Rico​

  • Because Qenta is registered in Delaware and the UAE, Puerto Rican authorities may not have jurisdiction to enforce customer protections.
  • If Qenta collapses, customers may have to pursue legal action in foreign jurisdictions, which is expensive and difficult.

Conclusion: Opt-In Customers Are in Deep Trouble​

  • If Qenta used the money for operations and is now in default, opt-in customers may lose everything.
  • No legal protection, no regulatory oversight, and no clear way to get their money back.
  • Schiff and Euro Pacific Bank are protected, but customers are not.
This was a dangerously structured agreement that left customers completely exposed
Click to expand...
The recourse is to sue the IRS and OCIF. Had they just allowed Qetna to buy the bank, all funds would have been segregated and safe. The bank would have had over $10 million in capital, no debt, and no loans on the books. There was no legitimate reason to reject the sale. The sole purpose of the rejection was to advance the PR stunt that the bank was guilty of facilitating tax evasion and money laundering, to bolster the credibility of the J5 and for the OCIF Commissioner to win their public support to clean up Puerto Rico's banking reputation. The bank's customers where collateral damage. If customers lose money, it can all be recovered in a class action lawsuit against the government conspirators.
 
#2,638
regi said:
Just look at this shitty situation we're in. Theoretically we have some money. There's some guy who turned out to be a leech and has no interest in ending it. Somehow, I have no idea how, he's doing well. There is no law. No party able to speed it up and/or take it from lazy guy and give to someone able to show the end. It all seems like a scam, but no one cares. There's no even a simple try to calm down the rumors. After a few years passed and we don't know who's sitting on our money or where it is. No information. No plan. No deadline. Empty promises that eventually died too. Could it get any worse? The Quenta speculations will turn out to be real and we're all screwed. I was sure it would be like this. A simple game of ping-pong. The whole story from the beginning looked like a bigger plan to me.
Click to expand...
If the Qenta rumors are true, you have an excellent lawsuit against OCIF and the IRS. They are 100% responsible for this, and their actions were illegal.
 
#2,640
SCHLOSSFINANZ said:
and your high-profile team did not wonder that Qenta was licenced NOWHERE on the planet?
I seriously doubt audited financials exist
Click to expand...
You need to remember that according to the deal all OPt in funds were to transfer immediately to segragated individual accounts of customers. But since Novo held up the money, the funds that Qetna ended up getting were held by Qetna until all funds where recovered, so that Opt in customers were not put above Opt Outs. They wanted to treat everyone equally. So it was never the plan that customer funds be commingled with Qenta funds. This was all the fault of the IRS/J5 media campaign to falsely take credit for closing the bank for money laundering and tax evasion.
 
Register now
You must login or register to view hidden content on this page.
You must log in or register to reply here.
The Kingdom Bank

Forum Announcement

Latest Threads

The Kingdom Bank
Top Bottom
Back