Wanted to ask the same question tbh
Wanted to ask the same question tbhHelp me to understand how opting out would result in you losing 45% of your deposit?
Hello, this is an old email I have found. Not sure I understand. Am I OPT IN or OPT OUT?
View attachment 8765
Your Delaware link is just pointiing to general informations about Delaware as a financial (low taxes) safe haven. Where is the direct referring to Qenta?What is so difficult to understand? Have you never heard of a rebrand?
EMERGENT TECHNOLOGY & PAYMENTS INC. = QENTA INC. (Company No. 6227324)
Kerim Chouaibi is the director and CEO of Qenta CEE which is a tech company they acquired from Wirecard during its liquidation. So what? This means nothing.
Yes, Emergent Technology Holdings LP is used, as can be inferred from its name, as a holding company for Qenta.
LPs are normal for equity funds, holding entities, etc. in the US. So what?
Yes, it's registered in Delaware and has offices in Houston.
BdJ personal HoldCos are also in TX.
Proof?
What false premises?
Why would it have failed?
Using Delaware for a corporation is completely normal.
Qenta also has its subsidiary in PR.
There are things to attack Qenta for: their UAE trade licenses have expired, their Swiss company is closed, they only have an MSB and licenses in low-tier countries in places like Ghana or Bosnia and Herzegovina.
But the apparent non-existence of their entity, the doubt for which was only created because people, for some unknown reason, cannot comprehend that an entity can change its name, is really not one of them.
You already shared this before – it shows Kerim is the director of the Austrian entity. This is NOT a financial company and cannot hold customer funds (there are no statements or evidence for it doing that either).
This does not show ownership at all.
Opt in was the defualt. To opt out you had 30 days to notify EPB of your decision to Opt Ot and to provide the bank with wiring instructions to an alternative financial institution with an account of the same name as your EPB account. No third party wires."The opt in option was for people who had no other accounts they could send the money to" => I had a personal account (like most of OPT IN) and used to transfer money to myself multiple times for 2 years before the liquidation. My last transfer was obviously rejected when EBP started to stop its activity 3 years ago. To be honest, I still don't know who chose OPT IN for me!! It was clearly decided without my approval nor knowledge! Well, I accept to lose this money. I've been lucky these last 3 years and if everything okay, I'll be lucky again for 3 more years but please don't say OPT IN was for people who didn't have other account. THAT IS NOT TRUE. Of course, nobody at EPB was able to explain to me why I am OPT IN...
Read my post below! Tks.the Austrian entity is not LICENCED!
i did it but my wire transfer was ignored end not executed. I discussed about that with Andrew and he told me that i should be actually considered as optout despite i'm in the optin list.Opt in was the defualt. To opt out you had 30 days to notify EPB of your decision to Opt Ot and to provide the bank with wiring instructions to an alternative financial institution with an account of the same name as your EPB account. No third party wires.
all other clients (except UAE) trade Responsible Gold via Dubia DMCC (Dubai Multi commodities center = 0% corporate tax).
You are wrong. EPB was never declared insolvent. After it's 2021 audit, OCIF found that the bank was under-capitalized. That's because unlike St. Vincent, Puerto Rico required reserve against cash deposits in banks. So the money we had deposited in Novo Bank needed a reserve, as if those deposits represented a loan. But the bank was never insolvent in any financial sense. It also had millions more in cash to cover all deposits and other trade invoices. EPB never had any debt on its balance sheet.In a nutshell, this is how I see the Qenta aspect in all of this mess:
EPB had already been driven to the brink of insolvency in 2021. The bank had almost no financial cushion, hardly any liquidity. The supervisory authority in PR recognized this, issued a warning and ultimately classified it as insolvent. This is evident from EPB's figures and is even, hiddenly, acknowledged by PS in the statement of claim. Although a different conclusion is drawn in the plaint. PS made various attempts to sell off EPB before it was declared insolvent. Initially, in order to profit as much as possible from a sale, and in the end more or less at any price. The main thing was to minimize losses!
The deal with Qenta: Qenta was acquired by Aurin Investment, which is part of Kerim Chouaibi's network of companies. It was part of the insolvent Wirecard AG, which had already been broken up by insolvency administrators at the time. Wircard is the largest accounting fraud in German financial history and has caused billions in damage. The parts of Wirecard acquired by Chouaibi, which were renamed ´Qenta’, are: Qenta Gmbh, registered in Frankfurt, Qenta Payments CEE GmbH, registered in Graz (Austria) and Qenta Technologies Group Sarl, registered in Munsbach (Luxembourg).
None of them is a bank. The Qenta in question for EPB customers is Qenta, registered in Frankfurt. It has three consumer products: Qenta app, G-coin, Responsible Gold. The latter is a sub-company based in Houston, Tx (USA). It was previously called Emergent Technologies and was founded by Brent de Jong. However, EmTech was acquired by Qenta in 2022 and no longer exists. Brent de Jong was then made CEO of Qenta.com in this deal. Kerim Chouaibi is part of the management team. He is mainly involved in the management of his network of companies around Aurin Investment. Brent de Jong offers clients two options to trade in precious metals, in the form of Responsible Gold: a) US clients trade via GWC, a Delaware registered company. b) all other clients (except UAE) trade Responsible Gold via Dubia DMCC (Dubai Multi commodities center = 0% corporate tax).
This means that the statement that Qenta is registered in Delaware is factually incorrect. Qenta is a GmbH registered in Germany. Likewise, Qenta is in no way a bank. At best, it is a precious metals trading platform.
Why the supervisory authority in PR could ultimately allow such a thing, i.e. that opt-in customer funds could be moved to a precious metals trading platform in Dubai, is, like some other questions surrounding EPB's insolvency, a subject area that lawyers can probably best clarify in the context of a class action by the affected parties? In any case, it must be assumed that deliberate efforts were made to conceal any proximity of Qenta to the former Wirecard from EPB's international clientele in order to make it less easy to raise concerns!
That was our first government audit after moving the bank to Puerto Rico. We had been asking for our annual audit for two years, so that we could find out if we were doing anything wrong. But OCIF was behind in its audits. But every year we still had an independent financial audit done. The bank did not realize that cash deposits at other banks were treated the same as loans. We only found that out after the OCIF audit. St. Vincent did not have that requirement. OCIF did not require an immediate capital injection. Instead, OCIF gave the bank time to develop a plan to increase the capital. The plan I presented was a sale to Qenta, which provided for $8 million in additional capital, which was millions more than was needed. But we were always a 100% reserve bank. The bank always held more cash than was owed to customers. Contrast that with most banks, that don't even keep 10% of their deposits in cash. Every deposit was safe. The only problem was that OCFI rejected the sale, refused to allow me to add any more capital myself, and insisted on putting the bank into receivership. That was compounded by the deliberate J5 PR campaign to pretend the bank was facilitating tax evasion and money laundering, which lead to the Portugese government freezing the bank's account at Novo Bank. During that time the receiver did not keep up to date with changing SWIFT requirements that left the bank unable to process wire requests with Novo Bank.Yes an audit that was never made public to customers at the time to see whether they wanted to continue to use an under-capitalized bank.
The law is the law whether you like it or not. You must follow OCIF's requirements even if you don't agree with it or it does not fit with your internal full reserve business model. You don't make the rules as a bank you follow them or hand back your banking license.
P.S For an audit to determine your bank was under capitalized shows gross incompetence in the management of the bank by the staff there.
No, the regulations in Puerto Rico where far more strict they were in St. Vincent, which is where the bank moved from . I didn't want to go to FLa. as I did not want to be FDIC insured. EPB didn't need that as it was 100% reserve. Plus, my tax rate on the income I hoped to earn running the bank in PR was only 4%. If I ran it in Fla. it would have been 45%. (21% corporate tax, then 24% federal income and Obamacare tax).always the same and same story PS. You literally spam the thread with this allegations. I personally doubt you will win in court tbh.
You moved your bank to PR because you knew it was a shitty regulator, why didn't you move it to Florida? Oh wait they would never grant you a banking licence there and need 20 (!) times more regulatory capital
We did not make excuses. We had been asking the government for over 2 years to audit the bank to make sure we where doing everything right.This is what I mean when I say incompetence in the management of the bank. Ignorance by management is no excuse here.
P.S They were running a bank and not a sweet shop.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?