Yes, I can see the possibility of lawsuit against OCIF based on that information.
I don't know if anyone has ever filed a successful lawsuit against OCIF in the past, but at this point you have literally nothing to lose.
The bank was not insolvent. That was confirmed by the receiver. It had millions more in cash than was owed to depositors, plus no debt and no loans. While it's true that the bank did not have enough regulatory capital, those capital requirements were written for banks that made loans. Mine made none. More importantly, the bank was never given a chance to add additional capital. Had OCIF ask us to add capital we would have. The bank was operating based on assurance made by the Commissioner herself that the bank's capital was fine pending approval of the sale to Qenta. Qenta had agreed to add $7 million in additional capital once the sale was formally approved. That was millions more than was needed. I offered to put the $7 million in myself while OCIF did their due diligence on the principals of Qenta, but the Commissioner told me that was not necessary (there were about 8 witnesses to the Commissioner's assurance) . Five months later she made a secret deal with the IRS to shutdown the bank using low capital as the excuse. She kept that decision quite for over three months, without once warning the bank that it needed more capital or it would be shut down.
The Commissioner had already told us informally that she supported the sale, but that OCIF still needed to formally vet the buyer. What I know now that I didn't know then is that the IRS illegally colluded with OCIF to arrange the shutdown of the bank over three months before it happened. During those three months OCIF misrepresented to me, the bank, and Qenta that the sale was still being vetted for approval.
Regardless ,even if the bank did not have enough regulatory capital to operate, once the bank's license was suspended, there was no reason to put the bank into receivership. The bank could have retuned all customer deposits on its own. There was no bankruptcy to work out in receivership.
Also, the was no valid reason to hold that press conference, which resulted in the Novo freeze. That was all part of the plan to allow the J5 the bank was guilty of crimes the grand jury proved it did not commit. So the Commissioner was not acting in the best interest of customers, but of the IRS and J5. She sacrificed customers for a J5 PR stunt. Of course, she did not see the Novo freeze coming, so she had no idea she opened such a large can of worms.
More likely the IRS than OCIF. I think the OCIF Commissioner was pressured by the IRS into making this decision. She was so enthusiastic about the sale to Qetna when it was first presented to her. Something happended to change her mind and it had nothing to do with the bank's capital, or a pretend history of non-compliance.Yes, I can see the possibility of lawsuit against OCIF based on that information.
I don't know if anyone has ever filed a successful lawsuit against OCIF in the past, but at this point you have literally nothing to lose.
More likely the IRS than OCIF. I think the OCIF Commissioner was pressured by the IRS into making this decision. She was so enthusiastic about the sale to Qetna when it was first presented to her. Something happended to change her mind and it had nothing to do with the bank's capital, or a pretend history of non-compliance.
Yes, she could have done that, I agree. I also agree that she should have done that. But I don't known the type of pressure the IRS put on her. Also, to protect customers from a lengthy liquidation I agreed to waive my right to sue OCIF. So that may be a problem to my bringing a lawsuit against OCIF. But it's also possible that's OCIF's fraud could be a way to get around that. Had I known about the secret deal made with the IRS back in March of 2022 to announce the sale of the bank the months later, to frame the bank for tax evasion and money laundering as a PR stunt for the J5, I never would have waived that right. But I never waived my right to sue the IRS. So that's what I am looking into now.I understand the involvement of the IRS, but ultimately the Commissioner made the decision herself to close the bank. She could have easily said to the IRS representative that there was no legal basis to close the bank. She could have said to the IRS agent "I can't close the bank because I told them that there was no need for the bank to add more capital as Qenta was already committed to add 7 million".
I see the Commissioner as the main culprit.
Also, to protect customers from a lengthy liquidation I agreed to waive my right to sue OCIF. So that may be a problem to my bringing a lawsuit against OCIF.
Hi ArjenHello, everyone,
a lot of people on this forum already joined our group and towegether we hired a lawyer in puerto rico. I recently launched this site:
www.europacific-customers.com
We want as many customers as possible to join this group. The more we are with the more money we can raise to take legal action against OCIF / the receiver and other parties involved to get our money back.
As for today we are with about 25 customers but I think we can reach a 100 at least.
So please check this website and if you need information sent an email to info@europacific-customers.com
Would be nice if everyone links this site to their socials!
Regars
Arjen
PS: Thanks to Peter that he recommended this site on his X account
While it's true that the bank did not have enough regulatory capital, those capital requirements were written for banks that made loans.
We followed the rules. We did everything regulators asked us to do. The IRS wanted the bank shut down, so OCIF looked for a pretense to justify its actions. But for the interference of the IRS sale of the bank to Qenta would have been approved. But for the IRS leaking the grand jury investigation, there would have been no need for me to sell the bank in the first place.You have to follow the rules where you choose to operate your bank. It is not for the rules to follow your banking model unfortunately. Otherwise operating in another jurisdiction that suits your banking model would have been a much wiser choice.
What I know now that I didn't know then is that the IRS illegally colluded with OCIF to arrange the shutdown of the bank over three months before it happened. During those three months OCIF misrepresented to me, the bank, and Qenta that the sale was still being vetted for approval.
Regardless ,even if the bank did not have enough regulatory capital to operate, once the bank's license was suspended, there was no reason to put the bank into receivership. The bank could have retuned all customer deposits on its own. There was no bankruptcy to work out in receivership.
Did your company really go bankrupt as a result of losing access to your EP bank account? If so, please prove me with more details. email schiff@europac.net.From the above, we know that they have screwed up many of our lives. I think if you file a lawsuit, maybe the case will move forward. They are guilty, everyone knows it. How long will we stay in the same place... it's been 2 years now. We can wait another 2 or more or do something. For me, this is a corrupt activity and the goal is to appropriate as much capital as possible under the guise of liquidating a bank that did not require it. They should be responsible financially for this and pay compensation to the bank, its shareholders and the bank's clients for the inability to use capital. Many companies, including mine, went bankrupt.
Is this a competition?Did your company really go bankrupt as a result of losing access to your EP bank account? If so, please prove me with more details. email schiff@europac.net.
https://web.archive.org/web/2022111...visos Publicos/FirstFinance_Press Release.pdfAre you talking about this bank: firstfinancebank.com ?
There is no information on their webpage that they have been put into receivership.
But the registration is closed.
If that's the bank you're talking about, at least communication is a bit better for us. We get useless announcements from the receiver from time to time.
Yes that's the bank. I confirmed the receiver with the owner.
To safeguard adequately the rights of all interested parties, OCIF designated attorney and CPA
Wigberto Lugo Mender, a professional with vast experience in these processes, to serve as First
Finance’s Trustee, effective immediately.
Peter, seriously.... do you think thats the case?The same Receiver for EPB was also appointed as receiver of First Finance, another PR bank that was put into receivership a few months after EPB. None of those customers have received any of their deposits back either. The same guy with no banking experience, put in charge of liquidating two banks at the same time. Maybe the only reason both banks are in receivership is so deposits can be stolen. Maybe the Receiver and OCIF insiders are embezzle the deposits, and no one cares as none of the customers live in Puerto Rico.
I don't know. Its certainly possible. There was no legitimate reason to put Euro Pacific Bank into receivership. There was no legitimate reason to reject the sale to Qenta. So either it was all part of the PR stunt to make the bank look bad and the J5 look good, or there was some other hidden purpose. The one thing I know for sure is the official reason given for the action against the bank was a lie.Peter, seriously.... do you think thats the case?
I think we can agree that with the knowledge we have, it makes little sense. But the explanation that they had to make J5 look good seems more plausible to me.I don't know. Its certainly possible. There was no legitimate reason to put Euro Pacific Bank into receivership. There was no legitimate reason to reject the sale to Qenta. So either it was all part of the PR stunt to make the bank look bad and the J5 look good, or there was some other hidden purpose. The one thing I know for sure is the official reason given for the action against the bank was a lie.
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?