Dear Customers,

You recently received a letter from the OCIF-appointed Receiver, Wigberto Lugo Mender, regarding the assets transferred to Qenta. Unfortunately, his letter misrepresents the facts and shifts responsibility away from where it truly lies. I want to set the record straight.

1. Customer Consent Was Based on Assurances Never Honored

When the “opt-in” process was conducted, both the bank and Qenta promised that:

• Your assets would be placed in accounts you controlled with immediate access.
• You could sell your assets at your discretion and withdraw the proceeds.

This never happened. In three years, Qenta:

• Never onboarded a single customer.
• Never credited gold, cash, or mutual funds into your accounts.
• Has instead tried to keep the assets for itself — offering no customer more than 35 cents on the dollar, and most customers nothing at all.

Since the conditions you agreed to were never met, no valid consent was ever given. Importantly, when these promises were made, the bank was already under the Receiver’s control. He therefore oversaw and bears responsibility for the representations made to you.

2. The Purchase & Assumption Agreement Was Never Completed

The Agreement required Qenta to obtain regulatory approval and assume customer liabilities before a closing could occur. That never happened. Instead:

• Qenta only took custody of assets — it never became the legal owner.
• Qenta failed to pay the $750,000 balance of the purchase price.
• Qenta terminated the Agreement without returning the assets.
• As the three subsidiaries were never paid for, they must also be returned.

By law, the bank has remained the owner of your assets throughout.

3. The Receiver, Not Peter Schiff, Has Responsibility

The Receiver claims I am to blame because I signed the Agreement. What he leaves out is:

• He became Receiver on June 30, 2022, three months before the Agreement was executed. By the time it was signed on September 30, 2022, the bank was fully under his control, and he signed off on every subsequent asset transfer.
• Even if the Agreement had been signed before receivership, once a Receiver is appointed, he steps into the shoes of prior management. That means enforcing all contracts — including the Purchase and Assumption Agreement — becomes his duty.
• The federal court has ruled that I have no standing to sue Qenta. Only the Receiver can act for the bank.
• Therefore, it is the Receiver’s obligation — not mine — to pursue litigation against Qenta and recover customer assets.

4. The Truth About the Silver

The Receiver’s letter downplays the situation with silver, but here are the facts:

• Like the gold, the silver was also transferred to Qenta under the Agreement.
• However, when Qenta failed to complete the transaction, I personally reached out to the custodian.
• Using the cancelled Agreement as leverage, I succeeded in having the custodian transfer control of the silver back to the bank, removing it from Qenta’s control.

That is very different from the way the Receiver described it. The silver is not “frozen” by chance — it is back under the bank’s control only because of my direct intervention, not because of anything the Receiver did.

5. The Receiver’s Own Words Undermine His Position

• He admits he has no verifiable information about the gold — an astonishing admission given it is his duty to locate and recover customer assets.
• He claims that the subsidiaries and their mutual funds were “sold” and therefore outside his scope. But those companies were wholly owned by the bank at the time of receivership, making them part of the estate he is supposed to administer. Worse, the Agreement to sell them was signed while he was already Receiver, and Qenta never paid for them. By definition, they still belong to the bank.
• He insists it is “unwarranted” to suggest he must resolve Qenta’s breach, yet the federal court has ruled the opposite: only the Receiver has standing and authority to litigate a breach of the Purchase and Assumption Agreement or to act on the bank’s behalf.

Conclusion

The Receiver is wrong to claim he has no responsibility or to shift that responsibility to me — especially since I asked him to delegate his authority to me so that I could enforce the Purchase and Assumption Agreement that he insists in my responsibility, but he refused.

The facts are clear:

• Customer consent was conditional and never satisfied.
• The Purchase & Assumption Agreement was never closed.
• Qenta breached by keeping assets without payment.
• The subsidiaries were bank assets when he became Receiver, and since Qenta never paid, they remain part of the bank’s estate.
• The silver was restored to the bank only because of my actions — not his.

I even tried to assume his responsibility myself. I brought an action against Qenta, and both a state court judge and later a federal judge agreed I had provided sufficient evidence to show the bank would likely prevail. They granted a temporary restraining order freezing Qenta’s assets. But that TRO was later vacated — not because the case lacked merit, but because the federal judge ruled that I had no authority to act. The ruling was clear: only the Receiver can bring that action.

That is the strongest possible proof that the duty to act lies with him. Though I lacked the authority, I still acted. The Receiver has both the authority and responsibility to act — yet refuses to do so.

All of the assets transferred to Qenta —precious metals, cash, mutual funds, and subsidiaries — belong to the bank and must be recovered. The Receiver has both the power and the obligation to take legal action against Qenta to get them back.

The Receiver’s refusal to act, and OCIF’s indifference, are the reasons I am now organizing a group action for customers to recover their assets directly. This path is far more difficult and costly than an action brought by the Receiver on behalf of the bank, because it requires coordinating a large number of individual claimants. But the outcome will ultimately be the same, since Qenta has no case. Qenta is simply exploiting the Receiver’s refusal to act in order to unjustly enrich itself at your expense, hoping that customers lack the resources or resolve to pursue justice. Unlike the Receiver, I will not sit back and allow this travesty to continue. While he refused to pursue cost-effective litigation with the bank’s funds — even after I offered to personally cover those costs — I am stepping up to fund far more expensive litigation with my own money.

Sincerely,

Peter Schiff
Sole shareholder Euro Pacific Bank