Euro Pacific bank is a scam

[Radko]

Well in her defense she was likely under a lot of pressure from Jim Lee of the IRS, and likely indirectly from the Age reporters who were originally leaked the information about the confidential grand jury investigation of the bank that ended after finding no evidence of any crimes. The bank's innocent customers were just unintended victims of these events and circumstances.

I understand she was under pressure and she had to close the bank, but she still could have allowed you to inject more capital, or she could have allowed the sale, or she could have allowed you to close the bank without the need of the Receiver, any of those would have been much better for everybody, while still closing EPB.

It's heartbreaking to hear that now there are hundreds of customers being investigated by their local tax authorities and probably being treated as tax evaders because of all this, those customers are very likely now having to pay tax advisors and maybe even lawyer to deal with their tax authorities, what a carnage.

Peter, what happened to this, I always wondered, did something change?

 

[Tulliola92]

Sincerely,
I would renounce to any legal persecutions if I just had the majority returned. I have learned a lot from this…
And I would just like to thank God if the Receiver and Commissioner should not be as mean as we suspect. It will be better to lose 1 or 2 % than everything.
We all have our obligations. He is aware of his power. So if he should not exploit our misery, he would already be a great man from my point of view.
I pray and sing : „Liber scriptus“ (Requiem by Verdi, Dies irae) believing in true justice.

 

[Pschiff]

I was not give as much authority as I hoped. I arranged the asset sale to Qetna, handled the transfer of the bank's subsidiaries to Qenta, and got the bank out of its office lease, plus sold off the furniture. But that's about it. The Receiver really wouldn't' allow me to do much else.

Peter, I don't blame you in particular, I blame a series of events that have gone from bad to worse very quickly, and specially a group of people that have not only destroyed the bank, but have also put in danger the lives of the innocent customers.

As for "life is full of risks" I believe most, if not all customers thought they were depositing their money in a full reserve bank, which should imply zero risk of losing their money, but now we are leaning that someone in the bank did not keep the bank 100% compliant, and we can all agree that it was a massive mistake for which customers are now paying the price. Yes the commissioner behaved terribly, and the J5 wanted to use the occasion for their 5 minutes of fame, and yes 60 Minutes Australia should pay for what they did to you and to all of us, and I truly hope you destroy them, but again, we have nothing to do with all those parties that somehow have and are taking advantage of this ordeal.

The question is, can the Receiver charge the bank any amount he wants? After all the Receiver is sitting on his a*s not doing much, but it seems that his fees can end up going as high as using all the bank's reserves, shouldn't there be a limited amount of money that he could charge regardless of how long this situation lasts? Or can he just ask for a blank check and demand any amount he wants?

And last but not least, I would happily join other customers in order to file a collective lawsuit if we don't get all our money back, but for that we would need you Peter to give us evidence that you offered all those alternatives to the Commissioner in order to protect customer's deposits. In order to prove that the Commissioner did not act in the best interest of the customers, we would need to prove that there were many other better options that would have resulted in customers not losing any money, if we can't prove that we have no case against OCIF.

The bank stayed true to its commitment to maintain 100% reserves. On the day the bank was placed in Receivership it had in excess to 100% cash reserves for all deposits. The bank did comply with rules. No bank is 100% compliant in every audit. EPB only had one audit the entire time it was in Puerto Rico. The bank was bound to make a few mistakes in a new jurisdiction. The type of mistakes made were common. Many banks have made much larger mistakes, but were not forced into liquidation. There was a huge double standard. Mistakes that are routinely made by other banks, were used as an excuse to close EPB.

 

[James123456]

Everyone. Two comments:

1) Appreciate that the source himself, Mr. Peter Schiff, has taken the time to provide extremely detailed answers/info in this forum. He really has covered what happened now.

2) That being said: THE ONLY RELEVANT thing now is Peter´s update in this forum this WEEK from his Portuguese lawyer about Novo bank releasing the funds after almost 10 months (since 30th of June 2022). The good news Peter has been alluding to here over the last couple of weeks.

Nothing else matters

 

[Pschiff]

Good news. A portugese judge has ordered the immediate release of the funds in the bank's account. The court has sent this notice to Novo. I expect the wires will go out this week for those who opted out of the transfer to Novo, and for all funds to transfer to Novo for everyone else.

The reason for the delay was that Novo inaccurately reported OCIF's action against the Euro Pacific Bank to Portugese authorities as having been related to allegations of money laundering and tax evasion. This despite the OCIF Commissioner's own words spoken at the press conference to announce the action, that allegations of money laundering or tax evasion had nothing to do with it.

That resulted in the Portuguese Government launching its own criminal investigation of the bank, and freezing its account while that investigation was conducted. The bank was advised by it's Portugese lawyer to keep this investigation secret, to comply with Portugese anti-money laundering laws. Under those laws the government has eight months to either file criminal charges or release the funds. That time period expired on March 22nd. After that date the bank went to court to order the funds released. We just found out today that the government lifted the freeze on its own on Feb 22nd. Novo found out the next day, but the bank was only informed by a letter mailed on April 5th, but not received until today. Despite knowing the freeze had been lifted since Feb. 23rd, Novo never informed the bank.

My suspicion is that Novo Bank originally misrepresented OCIF's action against Euro Pacific Bank to the Portuguese government so that it could hold onto the bank's funds during a criminal investigation. However, this also means that seven governments have now investigated Euro Pacific Bank for money laundering and tax evasion, and found no evidence of either. OF course, had OCIF not held that press conference, in which it invited the IRS and other J5 representatives to speak about how they once suspected the bank of facilitating tax evasion and money laundering (prior to an extensive investigation exonerating the bank of both), which also gave the media the opportunity to falsely report the action against the bank related to money laundering and tax evasion, the Portugese government would not have had a reason to conduct its own needless criminal investigation.

 

[Radko]

Good news. A portugese judge has ordered the immediate release of the funds in the bank's account. The court has sent this notice to Novo. I expect the wires will go out this week for those who opted out of the transfer to Novo, and for all funds to transfer to Novo for everyone else.

The reason for the delay was that Novo inaccurately reported OCIF's action against the bank to Portugese authorities as having been related to allegations of money laundering and tax evasion. This despite the OCIF Commissioner's own words spoken at the press conference to announce the action, that allegations of money laundering or tax evasion had nothing to do with it.

That resulted in the Portuguese Government launching its own criminal investigation of the bank, and freezing its account while that investigation was conducted. The bank was advised by it's Portugese lawyer to keep this investigation secret, to comply with Portugese anti-money laundering laws. Under those laws the government has eight months to either file criminal charges or release the funds. That time period expired on March 22nd. After that date the bank went to court to order the funds released. We just found out today that the government lifted the freeze on its own on Feb 22nd, but only informed Novo. However, Novo never told anyone the freeze was lifted. Today a Portugese judge sent an official notice to Novo Bank ordering it to release the funds.


My suspicion is that Novo Bank misrepresented OCIF's action to the Portuguese government so that it could hold onto the bank's funds during a criminal investigation. However, this also means that seven governments have now investigated the bank for money laundering and tax evasion, and found no evidence of either. OF course, had OCIF not held that press conference, in which it invited the IRS and other J5 representatives to speak about how they once suspected the bank of facilitating tax evasion and money laundering (prior to an extensive investigation exonerating the bank of both), which also gave the media the opportunity to falsely report the action against the bank related to money laundering and tax evasion, the Portugese government would not have had a reason to conduct its own needless criminal investigation.

I always suspected that Novo would do everything they could, legal or not, to hold on to the deposit.

Thank you Peter for keeping us informed, let's hope we can access our funds asap.

Good news. A portugese judge has ordered the immediate release of the funds in the bank's account. The court has sent this notice to Novo. I expect the wires will go out this week for those who opted out of the transfer to Novo, and for all funds to transfer to Novo for everyone else.

The reason for the delay was that Novo inaccurately reported OCIF's action against the Euro Pacific Bank to Portugese authorities as having been related to allegations of money laundering and tax evasion. This despite the OCIF Commissioner's own words spoken at the press conference to announce the action, that allegations of money laundering or tax evasion had nothing to do with it.

That resulted in the Portuguese Government launching its own criminal investigation of the bank, and freezing its account while that investigation was conducted. The bank was advised by it's Portugese lawyer to keep this investigation secret, to comply with Portugese anti-money laundering laws. Under those laws the government has eight months to either file criminal charges or release the funds. That time period expired on March 22nd. After that date the bank went to court to order the funds released. We just found out today that the government lifted the freeze on its own on Feb 22nd. Novo found out the next day, but the bank was only informed by a letter mailed on April 5th, but not received until today. Despite knowing the freeze had been lifted since Feb. 23rd, Novo never informed the bank.

My suspicion is that Novo Bank originally misrepresented OCIF's action against Euro Pacific Bank to the Portuguese government so that it could hold onto the bank's funds during a criminal investigation. However, this also means that seven governments have now investigated Euro Pacific Bank for money laundering and tax evasion, and found no evidence of either. OF course, had OCIF not held that press conference, in which it invited the IRS and other J5 representatives to speak about how they once suspected the bank of facilitating tax evasion and money laundering (prior to an extensive investigation exonerating the bank of both), which also gave the media the opportunity to falsely report the action against the bank related to money laundering and tax evasion, the Portugese government would not have had a reason to conduct its own needless criminal investigation.

So even if the freeze was lifted on February 22nd, Novo bank decided to ignore that and continued holding on to the deposit, what a bunch of xxx

Good news. A portugese judge has ordered the immediate release of the funds in the bank's account. The court has sent this notice to Novo. I expect the wires will go out this week for those who opted out of the transfer to Novo, and for all funds to transfer to Novo for everyone else.

The reason for the delay was that Novo inaccurately reported OCIF's action against the Euro Pacific Bank to Portugese authorities as having been related to allegations of money laundering and tax evasion. This despite the OCIF Commissioner's own words spoken at the press conference to announce the action, that allegations of money laundering or tax evasion had nothing to do with it.

That resulted in the Portuguese Government launching its own criminal investigation of the bank, and freezing its account while that investigation was conducted. The bank was advised by it's Portugese lawyer to keep this investigation secret, to comply with Portugese anti-money laundering laws. Under those laws the government has eight months to either file criminal charges or release the funds. That time period expired on March 22nd. After that date the bank went to court to order the funds released. We just found out today that the government lifted the freeze on its own on Feb 22nd. Novo found out the next day, but the bank was only informed by a letter mailed on April 5th, but not received until today. Despite knowing the freeze had been lifted since Feb. 23rd, Novo never informed the bank.

My suspicion is that Novo Bank originally misrepresented OCIF's action against Euro Pacific Bank to the Portuguese government so that it could hold onto the bank's funds during a criminal investigation. However, this also means that seven governments have now investigated Euro Pacific Bank for money laundering and tax evasion, and found no evidence of either. OF course, had OCIF not held that press conference, in which it invited the IRS and other J5 representatives to speak about how they once suspected the bank of facilitating tax evasion and money laundering (prior to an extensive investigation exonerating the bank of both), which also gave the media the opportunity to falsely report the action against the bank related to money laundering and tax evasion, the Portugese government would not have had a reason to conduct its own needless criminal investigation.

Peter, do you accept foreign customers at EuroPacific Asset Management, if so please let me know how to open an account?
I've seen your Twitter post indicating that you do accept foreigners, please confirm, thanks.

 

[Pschiff]

I always suspected that Novo would do everything they could, legal or not, to hold on to the deposit.

Thank you Peter for keeping us informed, let's hope we can access our funds asap.



So even if the freeze was lifted on February 22nd, Novo bank decided to ignore that and continued holding on to the deposit, what a bunch of xxx



Peter, do you accept foreign customers at EuroPacific Asset Management, if so please let me know how to open an account?
I've seen your Twitter post indicating that you do accept foreigners, please confirm, thanks.

Yes we do. Visit our website at www.europac.com and contact an advisor. You can call the phone number or fill out the online form. Look forward to working with you.

I always suspected that Novo would do everything they could, legal or not, to hold on to the deposit.

Thank you Peter for keeping us informed, let's hope we can access our funds asap.



So even if the freeze was lifted on February 22nd, Novo bank decided to ignore that and continued holding on to the deposit, what a bunch of xxx



Peter, do you accept foreign customers at EuroPacific Asset Management, if so please let me know how to open an account?
I've seen your Twitter post indicating that you do accept foreigners, please confirm, thanks.

Yes we do. Visit our website at www.europac.com and contact an advisor. You can call the phone number or fill out the online form. Look forward to working with you.

 

[Pschiff]

No customer wires were sent out today. So far Novo Bank has been non-responsive to the bank's request. They will try again tomorrow. It's clear that Novo is doing everything it can to take advantage of this situation and hold onto the bank's deposits as long as possible. It really is shameful.

 

[btc100k]

Peter, do you accept foreign customers at EuroPacific Asset Management, if so please let me know how to open an account?
I've seen your Twitter post indicating that you do accept foreigners, please confirm, thanks.

Radko, you didn't even get your money back yet and you want Peter Schiff to manage your money? You really must hate money.

 

[Radko]

Radko, you didn't even get your money back yet and you want Peter Schiff to manage your money? You really must hate money.

You really must hate Peter Schiff to make such a statement, which shows a serious psychological problem given that you don't even know him personally, and you don't even have an account at EPB. I suggest you visit a therapist that hopefully can help you work your problems so you can live a happier life.
I'm sorry Bitcoin has gone down more than 50% from its highs.

 

[btc100k]

You really must hate Peter Schiff to make such a statement, which shows a serious psychological problem given that you don't even know him personally, and you don't even have an account at EPB. I suggest you visit a therapist that hopefully can help you work your problems so you can live a happier life.
I'm sorry Bitcoin has gone down more than 50% from its highs.

You put your life savings in an uninsured offshore bank that was founded by the son of a convicted felon. And I'm the one with psychological problems? I don't know why you are attacking me when I am trying to help you. Go read the reviews of his money management firm at TopRatedFirms.com.

And since you mentioned Bitcoin. I have been long since June 2016. You can do the math. And Peter Schiff has been bearish since the year 2011. You can do the math on that too. Who won?

 

[Martin Everson]

Go read the reviews of his money management firm at TopRatedFirms.com.

Are you referring to this feedback?

https://topratedfirms.com/brokers/customer/europacificcapital-review.aspx
Looks very concerning.

 

[Pschiff]

Don't rely on bogus reviews. Many were just made up by my critics to make me look bad. Some are legitimate, as not all risky investments pay off. Sometimes clients blame their broker when they don't. It's much better to just rely on my actual track record. Look at Morningstar and Lipper rankings. The performance of my mutual funds has been excellent. As for my father, he was a political prisoner. He was a very honorable man, who died in prison for his taking a principaled stance and exercising his Constitutional rights. You don't know anything him, or me.

 

[JoeOhNo]

Good news. A portugese judge has ordered the immediate release of the funds in the bank's account. The court has sent this notice to Novo. I expect the wires will go out this week for those who opted out of the transfer to Novo, and for all funds to transfer to Novo for everyone else.

The reason for the delay was that Novo inaccurately reported OCIF's action against the Euro Pacific Bank to Portugese authorities as having been related to allegations of money laundering and tax evasion. This despite the OCIF Commissioner's own words spoken at the press conference to announce the action, that allegations of money laundering or tax evasion had nothing to do with it.

That resulted in the Portuguese Government launching its own criminal investigation of the bank, and freezing its account while that investigation was conducted. The bank was advised by it's Portugese lawyer to keep this investigation secret, to comply with Portugese anti-money laundering laws. Under those laws the government has eight months to either file criminal charges or release the funds. That time period expired on March 22nd. After that date the bank went to court to order the funds released. We just found out today that the government lifted the freeze on its own on Feb 22nd. Novo found out the next day, but the bank was only informed by a letter mailed on April 5th, but not received until today. Despite knowing the freeze had been lifted since Feb. 23rd, Novo never informed the bank.

My suspicion is that Novo Bank originally misrepresented OCIF's action against Euro Pacific Bank to the Portuguese government so that it could hold onto the bank's funds during a criminal investigation. However, this also means that seven governments have now investigated Euro Pacific Bank for money laundering and tax evasion, and found no evidence of either. OF course, had OCIF not held that press conference, in which it invited the IRS and other J5 representatives to speak about how they once suspected the bank of facilitating tax evasion and money laundering (prior to an extensive investigation exonerating the bank of both), which also gave the media the opportunity to falsely report the action against the bank related to money laundering and tax evasion, the Portugese government would not have had a reason to conduct its own needless criminal investigation.

Hello Mr Schiff,

Is it possible now for You to share with us some documentation regarding recent events? Some court order maybe?

Thank You

 

[Radko]

You put your life savings in an uninsured offshore bank that was founded by the son of a convicted felon. And I'm the one with psychological problems? I don't know why you are attacking me when I am trying to help you. Go read the reviews of his money management firm at TopRatedFirms.com.

And since you mentioned Bitcoin. I have been long since June 2016. You can do the math. And Peter Schiff has been bearish since the year 2011. You can do the math on that too. Who won?

I'm glad things are working out for you with BTC, however as soon as a proper recession starts you can expect BTC to go well below $10K or $5K, you have seen how extremely volatile BTC is, at the moment the chances of BTC getting above $60K are zero unless the FED goes back to QE and more money printing, so for now the party is over.

*If I were to make decisions based on reviews I would have never opened an account at EuroPacific Bank, but from my own experience during all the years that I've had the account I can tell you that EPB had everything anyone would want, they had the possibility of buying Precios Metals, Mutual funds, plus a Brokerage account, and multi currency accounts, plus a debit card I've used all over the world in different currencies, and with arguably the best customers service I've ever experienced. If things wouldn't have been this good at EPB I would have left a long time ago, EPB was so good that I ended up closing other accounts I had in banks like UBS, or Barclays Bank, so I'll be the judge of EuroPacific Asset Management.

 

[btc100k]

Don't rely on bogus reviews. Many were just made up to make me look bad. Some are legitimate, as not all risky investments pay off. Sometimes clients blame their broker when they don't. It's much better to just rely on my actual track record. Look at Morningstar and Lipper rankings. The performance of my mutual funds has been excellent. As for my father, he was a political prisoner. He was a very honorable man, who died in prison for his taking a principaled stance and exercising his Constitutional rights. You don't know anything him, or me.

It is easy to distinguish between a bogus review and an authentic one. Bogus reviews are not detailed. Authentic ones are detailed. There are tons of detailed reviews and they are not pleasant.

And your mutual funds have been disasters. Just compare them to the SP500. Peter will come up with an excuse and say the returns don't include distributions and dividends. Don't fall for that trick.

In regards to your father, I read the court documents and indictments. They are free on the internet. He made over 4 million dollars scamming people. Calling him a political prisoner doesn't mean anything. That is just another way to protect the Schiff brand.

 

[Radko]

It is easy to distinguish between a bogus review and an authentic one. Bogus reviews are not detailed. Authentic ones are detailed. There are tons of detailed reviews and they are not pleasant.

And your mutual funds have been disasters. Just compare them to the SP500. Peter will come up with an excuse and say the returns don't include distributions and dividends. Don't fall for that trick.

In regards to your father, I read the court documents and indictments. They are free on the internet. He made over 4 million dollars scamming people. Calling him a political prisoner doesn't mean anything. That is just another way to protect the Schiff brand.

I wish someone would explain to me if you dislike or even hate a person why are you following everything he or she says, that's the pure definition of a hater TROLL, a masochist personality, (very common among Crypto lovers.)

Life's too short to be wasting it this way.

 

[Tulliola92]

I do not care about your numerous investment plans and convictions.
I have always been diversifying.
So please let us keep focusing on the return of our funds.

 

[Pschiff]

I wish someone would explain to me if you dislike or even hate a person why are you following everything he or she says, that's the pure definition of a hater TROLL, a masochist personality, (very common among Crypto lovers.)

Life's too short to be wasting it this way.

My father lived a simple life. He didn't make much money. You can't excluded annual distributions when calculating returns. The S&P in not the benchmark for my funds, which barely own any U.S. stocks. But my funds have beat the S&P in recent years, and by year end they my beat it over the past 10 years as well. Let's see what happens. Some reviews are from disgruntled clients. But they are few in numbers compared to over 10,000 clients who have had accounts with me over the years. Again some have blamed me for deciding to concentrate on only very high-risk investments, and then to have decided on their own to sell them at very low prices, only to watch from the sidelines as prices recovered. I'm not responsible for bad timing on the part of clients, especially when they trade against my advice.

 

[Radko]

My father lived a simple life. He didn't make much money. You can't excluded annual distributions when calculating returns. The S&P in not the benchmark for my funds, which barely own any U.S. stocks. But my funds have beat the S&P in recent years, and by year end they my beat it over the past 10 years as well. Let's see what happens. Some reviews are from disgruntled clients. But they are few in numbers compared to over 10,000 clients who have had accounts with me over the years. Again some have blamed me for deciding to concentrate on only very high-risk investments, and then to have decided on their own to sell them at very low prices, only to watch from the sidelines as prices recovered. I'm not responsible for bad timing on the part of clients, especially when they trade against my advice.

Peter, is there a possibility that Novo bank is facing a similar situation as SVB, I'm sure Novo didn't keep the deposits liquid, they probably bought bonds which have lost a lot of their value, so maybe Novo doesn't have the cash to cover the deposits.