Our valued sponsor

Euro Pacific bank is a scam

#2,423
I used to be a listener of PS on his interviews and podcasts. I truly believed on his bank. I tried to get my money out but it was too late, it was blocked.
I feel like that I got lured onto believing Qenta (opt-in) was the best option to get my money quicker, but after reading 122 pages on this thread my hopes are lower and lower.

The last time I contacted Qenta was 13th November 2024 and they replied me saying they are also waiting for the receiver's work to be completed.
The last time I contacted the trustee for EPB liquidation was 13th December 2024 and they directed me to Qenta, no good answers.

On the portal "El Nuevo Dia" says clients from the liquidating banks like Euro Pacific Bank (EPB) and Bancrédito International Bank & Trust started to receive their money back in April 2023 (https://www.elnuevodia.com/negocios...n-bancos-internacionales-recuperan-su-dinero/).
Apparently only the Bancrédito clients had because as I see, no one from EPB had go a single cent back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: feelfunk, MikeDem, Vqn and 1 other person
#2,424
Don't worry guys, if Quenta goes under they will use the opt outs money to pay the opt ins. :D

Anyone who hopes to get back their money need to get a reality check. I am not saying there's absolutely no chance of it happening, but relying on that slim margin is silly.

Peter has a better chance of winning his lawsuit then you lot getting the money back.

If you wish to blame anyone blame OCIF. They are responsible for all of this. ALL!
 
  • Like
Reactions: feelfunk
#2,428
Martin Everson said:
It exists in shell form but it's not a transparent bank in that ppl know nothing about what happens with their money or if its even there....lol. I have seen it all before how banks especially offshore banks without published audited financials can have missing funds i.e Standford International bank etc. Euro Pacific Bank could also just be sending screenshots to auditors like Wirecard bank....lol....wait where is Euro Pacific Banks audit report anyway? ca#"!



I am surprised they are not asking clients if they are compliant with tax and reporting of accounts in their home countries or place of operation. Or for clients to provide some proof they are tax compliant in countries they operate in. That tells you they are a tax avoidance bank and that tax avoidance is Euro Pacific Banks CORE business.
Click to expand...
Wait who approved their banking license? And which country are they incoporated in? How can they not have a 3rd party audit publicly available since most central banks require this as ongoing requirement to renew license for next year...
 
  • Like
Reactions: feelfunk
#2,429
Following an advice from this forum (a few pages back) I took the move to email the Receiver/Truste ([email protected]) and that's what I've got.

My email:
Hi, good morning.
Thanks for your response.
I tried contacting Qenta on this subject and I'm not happy with their response or the way they are running all this thing.
Back in the day I was told that being an opt-in I would have quicker access to my funds and I believe I was lured into believing that, the way the setup the phone calls and the words they said it was looking like they would make it easier for the opt-in (I remember a number around 47% of the clients were opt-in.
It seems that it was all planned from the beginning (from Qenta side) for the process to not run smoothly.
After this last contact I had with you. I did some research, which I didn't do back then due to lack of experience as well as time to do so, I'm not happy the way Qenta is running their business and it is very hard to find anything about them on the internet, so I do not trust them anymore to be my future receiver.
I found some information they failed to deliver Financial Statements for example (https://news.spacconference.com/202...nvestors-acquisition-i-terminates-qenta-deal/)
As the liquidation process is still ongoing, I believe my funds (as well as most of the other opt-in clients) are still held by the Receiver/Trustee, saying that my question is.
Can I revert my choice and be an opt-out of this situation?
------------------------------

That's their answer:
Good morning.
Thank you for the email. Please be informed that your concern has been forwarded to the trustee. We understand the importance of addressing your issue and appreciate your patience.
We will keep you informed of any updates and progress.

Kind Regards,
EPB Trustee
-------------------------------

I believe if all of us enquire them with some sort of mistrust on Qenta, they can do a move and make it possible to be an opt-out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vqn, Radko and feelfunk
#2,430
Sardinha said:
I believe if all of us enquire them with some sort of mistrust on Qenta, they can do a move and make it possible to be an opt-out.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the funds for opt-outs (and a some more) are already with Qenta according to the information posted here. That means Qenta will have to transfer it back to the receiver for people switching from opt-in to opt-out. Would they be willing to do that? Do the funds still exist or have they been spent? I think that's a big problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: feelfunk
#2,432
Nw1 said:
Wait who approved their banking license? And which country are they incoporated in? How can they not have a 3rd party audit publicly available since most central banks require this as ongoing requirement to renew license for next year...
Click to expand...

Don't ask me. Being telling people to stay away from any bank that does not publish financials. Any bank that wants to know all about your financial details and yet at same time tells you ZERO about their basic financial situation, has no FDIC insurance is only for the VERY brave risk takers or desperate to use.

The fact is people do more due diligence before putting their money in a crypto sh*tcoin than they do before putting their money in an offshore bank in a bankrupt banana republic.

P.S Hopefully people learn from this and hoping everyone gets their money back by 2030.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nw1
#2,433
Martin Everson said:
Don't ask me. Being telling people to stay away from any bank that does not publish financials. Any bank that wants to know all about your financial details and yet at same time tells you ZERO about their basic financial situation, has no FDIC insurance is only for the VERY brave risk takers or desperate to use.

The fact is people do more due diligence before putting their money in a crypto sh*tcoin than they do before putting their money in an offshore bank in a bankrupt banana republic.

P.S Hopefully people learn from this and hoping everyone gets their money back by 2030.
Click to expand...
This be facts "people do more due diligence before putting their money in a crypto sh*tcoin than they do before putting their money in an offshore bank in a bankrupt banana republic." I guess when people here the word bank they feel more safe since normally banks are highly regulated with tons of lincense requirements/compliance audits, etc and also most of the banks will write on their site saying their money is insured to a certain amount

While the moment people here crypto they think is it a scam?
 
#2,434
Nw1 said:
I guess when people here the word bank they feel more safe since normally banks are highly regulated with tons of lincense requirements/compliance audits, etc and also most of the banks will write on their site saying their money is insured to a certain amount
Click to expand...
Depends on the jurisdiction.

Nw1 said:
While the moment people here crypto they think is it a scam?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. Have you read those discussions?
C

Thread 'The future of Bitcoin and crytocurrencies'

I'm more than a little concerned about the future of cryptocurrencies. The concept has been undermined by government power grabs and everyday speculators. And with CBDCs coming in, the masses might see cryptos as beside the point.

The only optimism I have is that the masses experience CBDCs for what they are, then move to decentralized cryptos all over again.

What do you see in Bitcoin and cryptocurrency's future?
  • Like
 
#2,435
Pschiff said:
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
Click to expand...

Peter by his own admission said the bank did not have enough regulatory capital above showing bad management of the bank and clients interests. That's why its important to see a banks audited financials and have experienced bank staff.

Btw the same rules to apply to full reserve banks as to banks that lend. You don't get to pick and choose which rules you follow...lol.

Wishing everyone a swift return of their funds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: john8899
#2,436
Martin Everson said:
Btw the same rules to apply to full reserve banks as to banks that lend. You don't get to pick and choose which rules you follow...lol.
Click to expand...
This is clearly not true. Look at the banks that failed in 2023. They were allowed to be sold and uninsured depositors were reimbursed.

Different rules apply based on whether the administration likes you or not. It is completely based on where you fall into the power hierarchy. Some rules apply to some people and sometimes no rules apply to specific people. If we like you, you get benefits, if we dislike you, you get punished.
I agree that if you are a person who is "disliked" you should not give a reason to be punished by the people who dislike you, however you are assuming that these people wouldn't have been able to find or make up other reasons to punish EPB. That's a 100% guess on your part. The J5 made it their goal to kill the bank. They said it themselves. You think you could have fought the J5 just because you followed every regulation? Nosense. EPB was dead the moment the J5 decided to kill it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: feelfunk
#2,438
SCHLOSSFINANZ said:
no sorry these arguments are not substantive. EPB was not "killed" it was a bank serving high-risk customers which was run poorly with a highly flamboyant shareholder. Countless depositors are subject to investigations.
Click to expand...
They were investigated because they were at EPB. The HMRC sent every British account holder a threat but ended up only accusing one. Show me a consumer bank where if you investigate every single customer you won't find at least a few bad apples? Which bank is so in the game that they can tell a criminal from a legit customer before any crime has been comitted? What predictive cristal ball technology does a bank need to use to find such people?

Also aren't we forgetting the fact that the IRS investigation ended by them admitting that EPB made no mistake regarding the so called "high-risk customers"?

Not to mention that many banks have been guilty of handling drug money (HSBC, Wells Fargo, Citibank, Bank of America etc) are still operational today. Does that mean that drugdealers and cartels are not considered "high-risk customers" in America?

The one guy who was acused and sentenced by the IRS was a lawyer. I guess lawyers are more high risk than the members of the Mexican drug cartel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marie Manila, ilke and feelfunk
#2,439
you are in my humble opinion just another fan of PS who felt for his trap.... sorry it has been repeated over and over again that COUNTLESS clients are investigated, charged while being client at EPB.

A bank needs a ROBUST compliance and needs to ADHERE to local regulation. Plus HIGH REPUTABLE correspondent banking relationships are needed nowadays. Wonder why EPB had Novo Bank? Because ALL OTHER refused to offer correspondent banking services to them!
 
  • Like
Reactions: john8899
#2,440
SCHLOSSFINANZ said:
you are in my humble opinion just another fan of PS who felt for his trap.... sorry it has been repeated over and over again that COUNTLESS clients are investigated, charged while being client at EPB.
Click to expand...
You can believe whatever you want. Your acusations only weaken your position.

I literaly said that PS was responsible for the bad decisions he made. What I disagree with is saying that the IRS, OCIF and Lugo are not responsible for their bad or any of their decisions because all blame should go to PS.
IRS leaked unverified info, PS's fault. OCIF didn't allow to put money in the bank, PS's fault. OCIF didn't allow the sale of the bank, PS's fault. Lugo gave Quenta all our money, PS's fault. The dinosaurs dying, that's right, PS's fault.

How many of those countless EPB clients were charged with anything, and how many were commiting crimes after their accounts were closed? How many of the claims are legititimate and how many were fabricated? Does acusation = guilt? If so then every client of EPB is guilty.

SCHLOSSFINANZ said:
A bank needs a ROBUST compliance and needs to ADHERE to local regulation. Plus HIGH REPUTABLE correspondent banking relationships are needed nowadays. Wonder why EPB had Novo Bank? Because ALL OTHER refused to offer correspondent banking services to them!
Click to expand...

Did EPB use Novo bank before the IRS's baseless global defamatory mass meda campaign that did not result in any legal action began or after? Any bank would have crumbled under such pressure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marie Manila and feelfunk
Register now
You must login or register to view hidden content on this page.
You must log in or register to reply here.
Offshore Bank Accounts

Forum Announcement

Latest Threads

Offshore Bank Accounts
Top Bottom
Back