Euro Pacific bank is a scam

[danielboros]

The bank had to give the names of the account holders due to the investigation. There are no bank secrecy laws in Puerto Rico, they had no choice.

If they had no choice show me the order. So if you investigate the bank, not the account holders, the bank, you get the data of the account holders? Wouldn't you have to show negligence at least? Probable cause perhaps? If the cops investigate a house do they get to keep the house after the investigation is over? Seems like it.

The HMRC isn't allowed to get whatever data of a British citizen last time I checked. Citizens don't lose their rights the moment they go abroad or do an international transaction. If EPB gave up this data as you suggest then in my opinion they have at least violated British GDPR laws which EPB had to comply with.

The Receiver didn't give any information to the J5, the Receiver has nothing to do with the J5, the bank had to give that information before the Receiver was appointed.

How do you know that? Sure it is possible that the HMRC obtained the data in 2020, then waited until 2022 when the receiver took control (+ a month) and only sent out the emails then so that there was a higher chance that the statute of limitations won't apply anymore. Could be.

You have all the facts wrong

You are just as much in the dark as anyone else. Show me proof. Prove me wrong. I would be happy to admit that I am wrong.

Sorry I meant to say "mails" not "emails"

 

[Radko]

If they had no choice show me the order. So if you investigate the bank, not the account holders, the bank, you get the data of the account holders? Wouldn't you have to show negligence at least? Probable cause perhaps? If the cops investigate a house do they get to keep the house after the investigation is over? Seems like it.

The HMRC isn't allowed to get whatever data of a British citizen last time I checked. Citizens don't lose their rights the moment they go abroad or do an international transaction. If EPB gave up this data as you suggest then in my opinion they have at least violated British GDPR laws which EPB had to comply with.



How do you know that? Sure it is possible that the HMRC obtained the data in 2020, then waited until 2022 when the receiver took control (+ a month) and only sent out the emails then so that there was a higher chance that the statute of limitations won't apply anymore. Could be.


You are just as much in the dark as anyone else. Show me proof. Prove me wrong. I would be happy to admit that I am wrong.

Sorry I meant to say "mails" not "emails"

Listen, everything was reported back in the day. Australian customers were the first ones to get contacted by their tax authorities, as well as Dutch customers. HMRC just took longer to get in touch with people.

The J5 was using international AML laws to get the names of the account holders.
The IRS agent was leading the investigation, Puerto Rico is subject to federal laws of the United States. The two primary AML regulations are the Bank Secrecy Act and the Patriot Act. The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) is the first and most comprehensive federal law aimed at preventing the financing of terrorists and money laundering.

At this point all that is irrelevant, let's hope we get some money back at some point, all the cash is there.

 

[danielboros]

I see no proof that all Australian and/or all Dutch customers were contacted by authorities. If it was reported, where is the report? If someone is already investigated of course you could get info from the Bank or the IRS, but that is different from giving away every single name on a list.

I'm not sure that the BSA and/or the PA gives the IRS the power to give away information.

The only legit way the HMRC could obtain the info seems to me was via Mender who was hired by OCIF who in turn colluded with the IRS. That seems to me a more sensible reason than to say, the IRS needed a win so they didn't allow the sale to Quenta. Maybe they just needed someone who was willing to give the list directly to the HMRC.

I imagine Novo will never pay. They are probably insolvent. If there's a recession or a depression both the money and the assets will be used up by the gov. in Puerto Rico.

 

[Lemon]

I see no proof that all Australian and/or all Dutch customers were contacted by authorities. If it was reported, where is the report? If someone is already investigated of course you could get info from the Bank or the IRS, but that is different from giving away every single name on a list.

I'm not sure that the BSA and/or the PA gives the IRS the power to give away information.

The only legit way the HMRC could obtain the info seems to me was via Mender who was hired by OCIF who in turn colluded with the IRS. That seems to me a more sensible reason than to say, the IRS needed a win so they didn't allow the sale to Quenta. Maybe they just needed someone who was willing to give the list directly to the HMRC.

I imagine Novo will never pay. They are probably insolvent. If there's a recession or a depression both the money and the assets will be used up by the gov. in Puerto Rico.

Novo Banco 2024 Q1 profit: 180M €
And it looks like they are preparing for an IPO.... maybe they need the books to look as good as possible?

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/portugals-novo-banco-aims-ipo-wants-end-dividend-ban-2024-05-02/

 

[Radko]

Novo Banco 2024 Q1 profit: 180M €
And it looks like they are preparing for an IPO.... maybe they need the books to look as good as possible?

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/portugals-novo-banco-aims-ipo-wants-end-dividend-ban-2024-05-02/

Some of that profit comes from the interest they are earning on our money.

 

[MikeDem]

New game: EPB Poker
I bet that soon a new update will be out, and I bet it will be useless

 

[Lemon]

New game: EPB Poker
I bet that soon a new update will be out, and I bet it will be useless

I fold.

 

[regi]

Check

 

[Radko]

 

[Pschiff]

If they had no choice show me the order. So if you investigate the bank, not the account holders, the bank, you get the data of the account holders? Wouldn't you have to show negligence at least? Probable cause perhaps? If the cops investigate a house do they get to keep the house after the investigation is over? Seems like it.

The HMRC isn't allowed to get whatever data of a British citizen last time I checked. Citizens don't lose their rights the moment they go abroad or do an international transaction. If EPB gave up this data as you suggest then in my opinion they have at least violated British GDPR laws which EPB had to comply with.



How do you know that? Sure it is possible that the HMRC obtained the data in 2020, then waited until 2022 when the receiver took control (+ a month) and only sent out the emails then so that there was a higher chance that the statute of limitations won't apply anymore. Could be.


You are just as much in the dark as anyone else. Show me proof. Prove me wrong. I would be happy to admit that I am wrong.

Sorry I meant to say "mails" not "emails"

All the data on the bank's customers was turned over to a grand jury in Sacramento Cal. by order of the U.S. government. We are a PR bank. We had no choice but to comply with the court order. Whoever shared that information with the ATO or reporters broke the law. The grand jury investigation, and all the documents related to it, where supposed to be kept secret.

 

[Pschiff]

I didn't say that. I said that the IRS believed that.

How does that give the J5 access to customer accounts who don't have a brokerage account?

How do you know that the media frenzy had nothing to do with OCIF? Do you believe there was no collusion between OCIF and IRS?

If that is so why did Lugo Mender give customer data to the HMRC? How is that action in the best interest of the customers? What law requires Lugo Mender to provide this data.

How does that prove anything? How would they know before they could check the books? Are you assuming that the J5 knew that they won't find anything before they had the data?

Why did the HMRC wait for Lugo to take over before they sent out the their threats and how did the IRS obtain the data? Did you give it to them?

The receiver took over on June 30th 2022. That's the day the of the press conference. There is no way the HMRC would have announced an investigation of UK depositors before than. I don't even think the HMRC expected to find any UK customers evading taxes. They must have known from the IRS investigation that no evidence of tax evasion was found. I think the HMRC announcement of an investigation was part of the PR stunt to pretend the bank was facilitating tax evasion, and that the Atlantis investigation was a success. The head of the HMRC falsely claimed the J5 took out Euro Pacific bank to stop tax evasion. So by announcing the investigation of 500 people they implied those people where among those found to be using EPB to evade taxes. It also may have been a bluff to get some people to confess, as the investigation gave them no evidence that any UK citizen evaded taxes.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1784606389140148627