Hi SpartanWe already have legal group representation, so have failry detailed knowledge of what is going on internally, but someone needs to put pressure on OCIF, that is where @Pschiff comes in, if it is what he says it is, then he should have grounds for a breach of agreement for failure to return cusotmers funds in a timely manner, add to that the failure of the reciever to recover the $500k due back to EPB to cover operating expenses from currency matters. all this negligence falls back to the OCIF for selecting such an inexpereienced, incompetent and corruprt reciever.
Still no news, right? do we know if anything is happening?
Thanks all
Mike
Not that bad if they decide to update us more frequently. But a call with questions and answers would have been better.
At least they feel our frustration. But would be better if they could reply to our question because so far they haven't told us what is going on. They know more than they say.Waste of time. You would hear same trash info like this time. let's see ... maybe with another update #6876557778887667 we will know more.
I get very little information. I really gave up trying to help over a year ago when it became obvious I was wasting my time. Initially I expected to at least get a million or two back from the $10 million in capital I put up. I no longer expect tot see a penny. I just hope customers get their money eventually. But I have no authority at all to speed up the process.Peter Schiff is the owner of the Bank, I don't understand why he is not being informed of everything that's happening so he could inform us.
Maybe the Receiver is doing all he can, maybe is not his fault, maybe he has hired a lawyer in Portugal. The problem is that we don't know what's going on, so before taking any kind of action we must know the facts, then we could decide whether to wait or take action.
The receiver is making too much money off of this to want it to end. That's my opinion. So you need to bring the pressure on OCIF. There is not much I cab do personally, as my hands are tied legally due to the settlement. I had hoped that settlement would have at least expedited the return of customer funds. That's one of the main reasons I agreed to it. But the Novo situation same out of left field and screwed that up. It turned out to be a huge windfall for the receiver.Hi Peter,
I understand that it is very frustrating to be falsely accused and then on top lose a lot of money as a consequence. It is extremely unfair, but unfortunately, this is where we are.
But former EPB account holders have their lives put on hold, we are taken hostages, some with all their savings and businesses as well. We cannot move on with our lives until we get the money back.
Now looking forward, I want to know, what is in your opinion the best way forward from here? sit back and wait more? or is there any pressure that can be put on these people by US authorities? by Newspaper/media campaigns?, Lawyers?
The better argument is that a receiver never should have been appointed. The better alternative was to allow Qenta to buy the bank. The next best alternative was to allow another buyer. There were other qualified buyers who stepped up. Third best was to allow me to liquidate the bank myself without a receiver. I offered to do the job myself for free, and would have personally guaranteed every customer would have been made whole, even if I had to use my own funds to do it. But that would not have been necessary as there was more than enough money available to pay all customers in full, even without the Currency Matters money the receiver blew.We already have legal group representation, so have failry detailed knowledge of what is going on internally, but someone needs to put pressure on OCIF, that is where @Pschiff comes in, if it is what he says it is, then he should have grounds for a breach of agreement for failure to return cusotmers funds in a timely manner, add to that the failure of the reciever to recover the $500k due back to EPB to cover operating expenses from currency matters. all this negligence falls back to the OCIF for selecting such an inexpereienced, incompetent and corruprt reciever.
The money hasn't been lost. The receiver is spending it. Mostly on himself and his friends is my guess.If anyone here has the Receiver's phone number, please give him a call and see if you can wake him up, it's 2024.
If this situation is going to drag on for years, or if the money has been lost, them I think we deserve to know.
Thanks.
How many clients and total deposits are we talking about approx.?The money hasn't been lost. The receiver is spending it. Mostly on himself and his friends is my guess.
Another update no-update on the website, for opt-ins I guess.
Do you guys think opt-outs may be refunded earlier or all the same mess for now?
I decided for opt-in long time ago, for no particular reason, now I'm thinking opt out was better, not sure.
Thanks all
Mike
So far the receiver has been unable to get the funds released. My guess is that he is not really motivated to do so, as the longer the funds are frozen, the more money he makes.
Novo has been earning interest on the money, so has no reason to make it easy for the funds to be returned either.But can the Receiver do as he pleases? Can he drag this on for years and years without anyone holding him accountable?
At the same time, it's very suspicious that it's been approximately one year since the account was unfrozen and here we are, still waiting. You would think that one year has given the Receiver plenty of time to comply with Novo's demand in order to allow the release of the funds.
Also, to clarify if you recall the bank was unnecessarily placed into receivership on June 30th 2022. The reason given was that the bank was "critically insolvent" and customers needed the protection of a trustee. That turned out not to be true, as one of the first things the receiver did was confirm the bank was completely solvent, and had enough cash and cash equivalents on hand to make all depositors and other creditors whole. So I believe the real reason for this action was to help the IRS, J5, and the media pretend the bank was shut down for money laundering and tax evasion. The media company and reporters in Australia unsuccessful tied to use the shut down of the bank as evidence in its "truth" defense to my winning defamation lawsuit, which the judge rightly rejected.The problem with Novo started with the OCIF's commissioner's decision to hold a press conferencing giving the IRS and J5 an opportunity to falsely imply the bank was guilty of facilitating tax evasion and money laundering, even though its own two-year extensive investigation exonerate the bank of both crimes. Following the press conference the J5 issued a press release, again falsely implying the bank was shut down as a result of the money laundering and tax evasion originally leaked to and reported by the Australian media and then the N.Y. Times. Those outlets then wrote deceptive articles based on the misleading press release, again implying the bank was shut down for tax evasion and money laundering. That allowed Novo bank to alert the Portugese government of our attempt to return money to customers as being suspicious. So the Portugese government froze the bank's account at Novo for 8 months supposedly to conduct its own money laundering and tax evasion investigation. By the time the account was unfrozen, changes to swift and other issues prevented the bank from initiating the wire requests agains, and Novo refused to act on the original requests the bank submitted prior to and during the freeze. So far the receiver has been unable to get the funds released. My guess is that he is not really motivated to do so, as the longer the funds are frozen, the more money he makes.
the OCIF commissioner gave them the opportunity to participate in a press conference,
Correct. But the Commissioner's comments about no evidence of money laundering or tax evasion were in response to reporter's questions. You can watch the press conference here.I watched the press conference, and I speak Spanish so I understood everything the commissioner said, and she never mentioned anything about "money laundering", she just said that the bank was insolvent, and she was closing the bank to "protect the customers."
Ironic that when the bank was closed there was more than enough money to refund all customers, but now given that the Receiver has been involved for 20 months, customers will end up losing a percentage of their funds. So it turns out that closing the bank the way that it was done, with an unnecessary press conference, has damaged customers, not protect them as the commissioner said.
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?