Does this mean Qenta are asking the Receiver for permission to steal the Mutual Funds? Am I reading this correct?
Our valued sponsor
Euro Pacific bank is a scam
- Thread starter OffshoreCorpTalk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- euro pacific bank
I was wondering that as well, but read number 3.
I believe they want to keep the Mutual Funds and return those to the customers, not to the Receiver.
After re-reading it a few times, I thing you are correct. If that is what they are proposing, I'm not comfortable with that. I do not trust Qenta one bit and although the Receiver has plenty of issues, I would rather the Receiver liquidate and distribute the proceeds. My position with EPB was 100% invested in the Mutual Fund's, so not good if the Receiver decides to leave the Mutual Funds with Qenta. Given all the emails I have sent Qenta, most of the not very nice, I'm sure they all hate me.
Yes me too, I don't want anything to do with Qenta at this point.
If Qenta keeps the Mutual Funds, they will only return the value as of 2022, they want to keep the gains!
I don't know why Qenta thinks that they are entitled to profit from OUR investments, we are the ones who took the risk, we could have lost money.
The letter Qenta wrote to @ATNTESTING stated....
"Therefore, we made the difficult decision to terminate the purchase agreement and return all liquidated assets to the Receiver as they were originally received."
That screenshot from Termination Notice then goes on to show the liquidated values and the final amount they intend to return in cash of $38,372,789.00 to Receiver. Hence they pocket all appreciation in the value of the metals plus demand compensation on top for time, effort and expenses....lol.
They are now just asking to go ahead and action this all and are not returning anything other than cash they mentioned. Have I misunderstood their actions?
Qenta is not being honest in this letter, as it has lacked the capacity to onboard Opt-In customers for over a year. That is likely why it sabotaged the migration process itself. G-Commerce DMCC's business license expired in Oct. 2023, and the company is no longer operational. G-Mint Sarl went bankrupt last year. G-Commerce was the company that was designation in the Purchase and Assumption Agreement to acquire Opt in Customer deposits, including cash and metals. G-Mint Sarl was supposed to be the bailee for the precious metals. Qenta received all the customer assets, it just lack the capacity to allocate those assets to the Opt-In customers, so it delayed the onboarding process. At current marker values Qenta is holding close to $80 million of bank customer assets. The bank itself is only holding about $48 million. The problem now is Qenta's refusal to return those assets to the bank unless the receiver agrees to let them keep half for themselves.
But Qenta hasn't explained why they are entitled to all the gains during the last 3 years, have they?
That is correct. But they are stating the values at Sept. 2022 prices. They've gone way up since them. But over $500k belongs to the bank. It's part of the bank's capital. So yes Qenta wants to steal that.
That is correct. The current market value of what Qenta lists as the assets is about $80 million. So Qenta wants to return less than half. Legally they are required to return 100%. All they can keep is $500K, which was what they paid the bank to purchase those assets and the corresponding liabilities to customers. In other words, Qenta only purchased the right to custody those assets for customers. They also have no right to bill the bank nearly $5 million for "termination" costs.
In Qenta's letter to the receiver they hide those gains. They listed the value of "liquidated" assets as of Sept 30 2022, without any reference to the current liquidation value of those assets. Qenta clearly hoped the receiver had no idea that gold and silver prices had basically doubled since then. They have no legal right to keep those gains. That's why they did not ask. They just deceived the receiver as to what those assets are worth. Technically Qenta are not asking to keep those gains, but its demanding $40 million to settle its bogus legal claim against the bank. The receiver needs to reject this claim and demand the immediate and unconditional return of 100% of the bank's assets. Qenta can return the gold, silver, and mutual funds in one day. It's just a matter of informing the custodians to reassign ownership. The receiver can liquidate everything, and have about $125 million in cash to distribute to the bank's customers. The bank has no other liabilities, so this is a very simple process. It should not take more than a month to complete.
Yes, the current market value of the assets listed is about $80 million . Qenta wants to keep $42 million for itself and return just $38 million to the bank, to distribute to its customers. That is why its offer is so outrageous.
Firstly, thanks to Peter for explaining what’s going on here with all this. It is very much appreciated. And thanks too to Daniel Boros for answering my question a couple of weeks ago.
I have a query about the practicalities of helping my mother with her claim form. My late father had precious metals with EPB. The statements only list my father’s name and Client Services at EPB said the account was registered in his name. However, we have documentation from the account setup process ten years ago which named my mother as co-account holder. Given that my father passed away very suddenly in late 2023, would she still need to get the necessary apostilles to claim the assets or can she claim it outright since we think she is co-account holder? We tried to ask the receiver but alas got no reply.
I have a query about the practicalities of helping my mother with her claim form. My late father had precious metals with EPB. The statements only list my father’s name and Client Services at EPB said the account was registered in his name. However, we have documentation from the account setup process ten years ago which named my mother as co-account holder. Given that my father passed away very suddenly in late 2023, would she still need to get the necessary apostilles to claim the assets or can she claim it outright since we think she is co-account holder? We tried to ask the receiver but alas got no reply.
Yes, the current market value of the assets listed is about $80 million . Qenta wants to keep $42 million and return $38 million to the bank, to distribute to customers. That is why its offer is so outrageous.
Since the Purchase and Assumption agreement is terminate, Qenta is required to return all the assets it received to the bank. Qenta can not demand to keep the appreciated value of those assets for itself, not can it arbitrarily impose damages related to costs it alleges it incurred. The Agreement it self establish NYC arbitration as the venue for either party to seek damages related to the contact or breach thereof. So first Qenta must return the $80 million in assets that it holds. If it then wants too seek $5 million to cover costs, it needs to file that claim in NYC. Qenta won't do that, as it will lose. The bank on the other hand can file an arbitration to recover losses it suffered due to Qenta's breach. The bank will prevail on that action. Any money recovered would go to customers.
Thanks, Peter, for all clarification. Should the OPT-INs immediate actions go along these lines?:
1. File a claim with the receiver just as the OPT-OUTs. Apparently someone has been notified he is now an OPT-OUT, but the Receiver is not communicating with all of us. I have written to him and he has not replied.
2. Write the Receiver a letter regarding Qenta's fraudulent termination conditions and the damages we will incur.
3. Notify and update OCIF with the current state of affairs. I would go as far as to file a complaint against the Receiver for lack of transparency and communication.
What steps can be taken to avoid Qenta cashing in over 50% of the metal's value?
1. File a claim with the receiver just as the OPT-OUTs. Apparently someone has been notified he is now an OPT-OUT, but the Receiver is not communicating with all of us. I have written to him and he has not replied.
2. Write the Receiver a letter regarding Qenta's fraudulent termination conditions and the damages we will incur.
3. Notify and update OCIF with the current state of affairs. I would go as far as to file a complaint against the Receiver for lack of transparency and communication.
What steps can be taken to avoid Qenta cashing in over 50% of the metal's value?
I am taking care of it myself. I have fully apprised the Receiver of the situation by email. His lawyer threatened me with legal action if I sent him any more. So he has received them, and should have read them. So he has no excuse if he agrees to allow Qenta to misappropriate any of the bank's assets. My concern is that he has sent emails to Opt-In customers claiming the assets transferred to Qenta are not his problem, as he is not overseeing them as part of the liquidation. Those where untrue statements. Qenta has custody of the majority of the bank's assets. It's his responsibility to make sure 100% of those assets are secured from Qenta. No conditions. No other payments for costs or any work they do to return the assets. If they want to claim those cost the Agreement itself provides that they must file an arbitration in NY court. They won't as they would lose, and end up owing the bank additional money to cover its losses related to Qenta's breach. I have sent a demand to Qenta to return all of the bank's assets (current market value of approximately $80) they acknowledged they still posses by Friday July 25th.
Why? Since when it's a crime to send an email just trying to help? Makes no sense.
well I sent him a lot of emails, all short, to update him on new information as I found it. He never acknowledged receiving a single one. The lawyers also demanded that I stop posting false information on this chat about the bank or the receiver. I replied twice asking them to identify any false information that I've posted. I have not received a reply.
Dear Opt-in customers,
I have been apprised by some of you that the Receiver has been sending emails to Opt-In customers that precious metals and other assets transferred to Qenta were excluded from the liquidation process, that those assets have never been under his administration, and that they are not part of the liquidation process that he is overseeing. All such statement were false. Yes, there was an Agreement to sell those assets, and the corresponding customer liabilities, to Qenta. But that sale and assumption never closed. See the below paragraph taken from the Agreement itself.
"Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, AT THE CLOSING, Purchasers shall purchase the Assets and assume the Liabilities object thereof, and Seller shall sell, assign, transfer, convey and deliver to Purchaser, free and clear of all Encumbrances, all of Seller's right, title and interest in and to such Assets and Liabilities."
So while the assets transferred to Qenta's custody prior to closing, the actual sale of those assets never took place, since Qenta terminated the agreement before it closed. So contrary to the repeated claims of the receiver, ownership of those assets and the corresponding customer liabilities belonged to the bank the entire time. So they have always been under his administration, and have been included in the liquidation process the entire time, whether he realized that or not.
If anyone else has emails from Wigberto in which he absolves himself of all responsibility for these assets, please forward copies to me at [email protected]
Thanks,
Peter Schiff
I have been apprised by some of you that the Receiver has been sending emails to Opt-In customers that precious metals and other assets transferred to Qenta were excluded from the liquidation process, that those assets have never been under his administration, and that they are not part of the liquidation process that he is overseeing. All such statement were false. Yes, there was an Agreement to sell those assets, and the corresponding customer liabilities, to Qenta. But that sale and assumption never closed. See the below paragraph taken from the Agreement itself.
"Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, AT THE CLOSING, Purchasers shall purchase the Assets and assume the Liabilities object thereof, and Seller shall sell, assign, transfer, convey and deliver to Purchaser, free and clear of all Encumbrances, all of Seller's right, title and interest in and to such Assets and Liabilities."
So while the assets transferred to Qenta's custody prior to closing, the actual sale of those assets never took place, since Qenta terminated the agreement before it closed. So contrary to the repeated claims of the receiver, ownership of those assets and the corresponding customer liabilities belonged to the bank the entire time. So they have always been under his administration, and have been included in the liquidation process the entire time, whether he realized that or not.
If anyone else has emails from Wigberto in which he absolves himself of all responsibility for these assets, please forward copies to me at [email protected]
Thanks,
Peter Schiff
Also, it just occurred to me, but since Qenta never actually bought the bank's assets, including the gold and silver, it never acquired legal title. All that changed was custody, not ownership. That is 100% clear from the contract Brent signed. So if Qenta refuses to return the bank's property that's grand larceny. If it converts any of that property to its own use, that will just make the crime worse. In fact, his letter to the receiver is extortion, another crime. It may also be wire fraud (RICO) and a criminal violation of federal bankruptcy laws, as assets belong to a bank in receivership. I don't think Brent wants to go to prison. So the threat should help the bank get its property back.
All of that makes sense to me and I appreciate that you are taking care of it, but I still think that the OPT-INs must act, and as a minimum a complaint must be filed. The Receiver left us, OPT-INs, in the hands of Qenta while focusing just in the OPT-OUTs, proven by the fact that the he is communicating just to random OPT-IN customers and that regular general updates on the liquidation website are overdue. OPT-OUTs have a DEADLINE to file their claims but nothing has been yet said to us in that respect, and that is worrying after Qenta’s termination letter to the Receiver,
Latest Threads
-
Malta broadens ‘merit-based citizenship’ to replace golden passports- Started by Martin Everson
- Replies: 2
-
-
11,500 UK companies struck off Companies House register after crackdown
- Started by John M
- Replies: 2
-
