No, this was all done by one OCIF official, the Commissioner. She likely has political aspirations and in exchange for her action she won the praise of not only IRS Chief Lee, but tax chiefs from Australia and the U,K. The press conference to announce the closure of the bank was the highlight of her career. It was all staged. A PR stunt. I already have all the evidence to prove it. I will get even more if I win my FOIA lawsuit against the IRS. They are break the law to avoid handing me extremely incriminating evidence.
Our valued sponsor
Euro Pacific bank is a scam
- Thread starter sonato
- Start date
-
- Tags
- euro pacific bank
I would file the lawsuit, if you win you will prove that everything was just a conspiracy and there was no legitimate reason to close the bank, and it will send a very strong message.
Whatever money you get, it will be up to you to decide what to do with it, you can always give it to charity.
That would pretty much be a win in my book.
I would support a class action lawsuit if I haven't had lost all my money two years ago. We could just give back any damages awarded to Puerto Rico - legal costs. I doubt that anyone actually cares or hopes for more than getting back what is rightfully theirs.
I think discovery would reveal a lot so I'm pretty sure they will fight tooth and nail to not let it happen.
Every decision of OCIF was based on how to maximize the harm done to customers. They could have chosen a different path at every intersection and didn't because they wanted to get rid of us.
I've watched the press conference a few times, and I speak Spanish, so I understand everything she said, and she lied a few times. It was insulting to say the least.
There was no reason for the press conference, it destroyed our chances of getting our money back any time soon.
She should be held accountable!
The commissioner was not motivated to harm customers so much as to help the iRS. The customers were just collateral damage. I don't believe she thought it would take this long to return funds. She required the entire liquidation to take place within 90 days. She did not realize that her press conference to frame the bank would work so well that the Portugese government would freeze the Novo account. But I thinks she could have done much more to get that freeze lifted, but she din't want to risk going against the media and j5 narrative that the bank was shut down for money laundering and tax evasion. So she allowed the freeze to continue for 8 months with minimal effort, only at my urging, to speed up the process. That, and an incompetent trustee with zero banking experience, is why its been more than two years and still no money has been returned.
Also I only get discover if I file my lawsuit. if I don't I need to hope I get the documents from my FOIA lawsuit.
Also I only get discover if I file my lawsuit. if I don't I need to hope I get the documents from my FOIA lawsuit.
The only reason for the press conference was the IRS and J5 wanted it. It was scheduled three months in advance to fall on the 4-year anniversary of the formation of the J5. They wanted to celebrate the occasion with their first enforcement success.
Just because OCIF didn't care about the customers doesn't mean that the J5 did not wish to punish and make an example of the people who choose to bank outside of their jurisdiction.
That is likely true, even though my customers weren't tax evaders. But those governments wanted to create the false impression they were to scare the real tax evaders into compliance and to win points with voters.
In reality PR was for years a money launderers paradise with all these not really supervised IFEs.
They ran of risk being grey-listed by the FATF so they had to clamp down and revoke all these licences.
EPB is not the only "bank" having their licence being revoked by OCIF.
But it was a selling point of all these IFEs not be part of CRS lol.
They ran of risk being grey-listed by the FATF so they had to clamp down and revoke all these licences.
EPB is not the only "bank" having their licence being revoked by OCIF.
But it was a selling point of all these IFEs not be part of CRS lol.
Totally untrue. But if you bank your assets in a virtually unknown very small bank in a high-risk jurisdiction which doesn't exchange tax information this is highly questionable, no?
It is true that privacy is eroding more and more but what did the depositors gain from trying to get a bit more privacy?
Especially when Mr Schiff claims there were no clients evading taxes with EPB?
There are far better banking jurisdictions in the world then PR which also offer some sort of privacy
Especially when Mr Schiff claims there were no clients evading taxes with EPB?
There are far better banking jurisdictions in the world then PR which also offer some sort of privacy
No, I agree that it is normal for the government to know what medicine I buy or what party I support in a totalitarian dictatorship.
I never cared about the privacy part. I just needed a bank that didn't require physical presence and EPB did not make any loans and offered to hold my cash in gold. No other bank would do that back in the day. The only risk EPB had was the IRS and their vindictiveness and when I opened my account the bank was not located in Puerto Rico so until the end it was great.
Remember that this bank operated with no real issue for almost a decade.
Last edited:
If it is so insignificant why kill it? How many of the banks in "top" finanncial centers are going to fail because of unrealised losses? How much was it last year? Half a trillion? EPB would not have failed, because it had a close to 100% reserve ratio. And it was protected from inflation because you could have all the money in gold. The only risk was the government and whether they cared enough to kill the bank despite the potential blowback.
Because they ran a high-risk business model. Many clients came by so called "referral agents / business introducers" to EPB.
This is extremely high-risk according to AML regulation. You have to EDD such clients.
And on top of that they had a flamboyant major shareholder named PS. (Disclaimer: I am not disagreeing with some views of PS but regarding EPB I can't follow his views)
You have to understand that all the former OCIF commissioners just did NOTHING. They sat in the office, were hosted to expensive dinners from other IFE bank owners or management and did not do their job to keep the jurisdiction clean. At the end it was even so annoying their inactivity that another state banking comissioner from the mainland US even told me at lunch how annoyed he was of OCIF.
Look
periodismoinvestigativo.com
This is extremely high-risk according to AML regulation. You have to EDD such clients.
And on top of that they had a flamboyant major shareholder named PS. (Disclaimer: I am not disagreeing with some views of PS but regarding EPB I can't follow his views)
You have to understand that all the former OCIF commissioners just did NOTHING. They sat in the office, were hosted to expensive dinners from other IFE bank owners or management and did not do their job to keep the jurisdiction clean. At the end it was even so annoying their inactivity that another state banking comissioner from the mainland US even told me at lunch how annoyed he was of OCIF.
Look
Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions Loses Accreditation
The Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (OCIF, in Spanish) lost last September its accreditation with the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS), an entity that monitors the procedures and operations of state agencies that regulate financial institutions in the United...
periodismoinvestigativo.com
High risk and after 4 years of investigation we still don't know if there was a single client who was actually no good. By the way did anyone ask EPB to not have referral agents for example? Would that have helped? Probably not so it is probably irrelevant and always was.
So they closed a legit bank so they can pretend to have done something? And some people ended up taking their lives or had to hide because their business failed?
My symphaty to your banking comissioner friend who has to deal with OCIF, but some of the people here had it a little more rough. OCIF lied people died. That's the only story that matters.
You know just because your business account gets frozen doesn't mean you can stop paying taxes. The HMRC doesn't care about your problems even if they were the cause of the whole thing.
And if you can't pay that means you are insolvent which means you can't take care of your kids and the government neads to step in to take away your kids as well so now that bullet thing doesn't look so bad anymore.
But I am sure from OCIF's point of view all of this looks very different and what they did was perfectly okay and no blood is on their hands.
So they closed a legit bank so they can pretend to have done something? And some people ended up taking their lives or had to hide because their business failed?
My symphaty to your banking comissioner friend who has to deal with OCIF, but some of the people here had it a little more rough. OCIF lied people died. That's the only story that matters.
You know just because your business account gets frozen doesn't mean you can stop paying taxes. The HMRC doesn't care about your problems even if they were the cause of the whole thing.
And if you can't pay that means you are insolvent which means you can't take care of your kids and the government neads to step in to take away your kids as well so now that bullet thing doesn't look so bad anymore.
But I am sure from OCIF's point of view all of this looks very different and what they did was perfectly okay and no blood is on their hands.
Of course not having business introducers, a robust compliance and not TAPPING regulatory capital woudl have helped EPB a lot.
And a shareholder who stops posting on X conspiracy theories might be also not a bad idea lol. Its not the job of the regulator to define the risk-profile / appetite of a bank.
Believe me I feel the pain of the customers! But a bank liquidation takes normally years not months.
Its just a cascade of events. Inexperienced people with no prior banking experience running the bank (claiming to know how to run a bank). A low-par correspondent bank, no professional regulator (OCIF), the international pressure to fix the PR banking mess and at the end an unexperienced banking liquidator! But despite Peter Schiffs conspiracy theory EVERY actor has their fair share in this cascade of events, according to my personal opinion.
And a shareholder who stops posting on X conspiracy theories might be also not a bad idea lol. Its not the job of the regulator to define the risk-profile / appetite of a bank.
Believe me I feel the pain of the customers! But a bank liquidation takes normally years not months.
Its just a cascade of events. Inexperienced people with no prior banking experience running the bank (claiming to know how to run a bank). A low-par correspondent bank, no professional regulator (OCIF), the international pressure to fix the PR banking mess and at the end an unexperienced banking liquidator! But despite Peter Schiffs conspiracy theory EVERY actor has their fair share in this cascade of events, according to my personal opinion.
When I have trouble following how many banks were put under water for the same reasons I have trouble believing that anything would have changed if this or that was different.
Would said conspiracy theories be related to the international mass media campaign initiated by the J5 agencies? Pretty sure there's no conpiracy there. Eveyone just happened to go to the same astrologer.
One way to avoid the harm caused by a bankrupcy is to not have the bankrupcy. Such as giving a fine or selling the bank like in the case of any other bank outside of Puerto Rico. If you have an issue with the management, change the management. If you don't want to harm people don't harm them. It is really that simple.
The problem is the managemenent were only target one, while target two were the customers. Do you know how many articles are out there calling us criminals by the J5? How many nations singled out and targeted EPB customers to date? Fiver or six countries maybe? I think it was Netherlands, Portugal, Australia, UK, Belgium and Canada. There's probably more. The presumption of innocence and human rights in general don't apply to EPB customers. I don't believe that there's much symphaty for use when all I read is HATE, HATE, HATE.
Would said conspiracy theories be related to the international mass media campaign initiated by the J5 agencies? Pretty sure there's no conpiracy there. Eveyone just happened to go to the same astrologer.
One way to avoid the harm caused by a bankrupcy is to not have the bankrupcy. Such as giving a fine or selling the bank like in the case of any other bank outside of Puerto Rico. If you have an issue with the management, change the management. If you don't want to harm people don't harm them. It is really that simple.
The problem is the managemenent were only target one, while target two were the customers. Do you know how many articles are out there calling us criminals by the J5? How many nations singled out and targeted EPB customers to date? Fiver or six countries maybe? I think it was Netherlands, Portugal, Australia, UK, Belgium and Canada. There's probably more. The presumption of innocence and human rights in general don't apply to EPB customers. I don't believe that there's much symphaty for use when all I read is HATE, HATE, HATE.
The two of you have a weird understanding of privacy. If privacy is a crime, start streaming every sex with your partner online. Doing it behind walls when no one is watching is also a crime (according to your logic).
Latest Threads
-
-
France Pursues Tax Fraud Facilitators - New Law 2024- Started by Martin Everson
- Replies: 6
-
-
Banking options for a Panama company- Started by moonrail555
- Replies: 4
