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

Dear Customer,

I want to update you on the latest development regarding your silver that was held by Euro Pacific Bank.

Over 100 of you have already followed the Receiver’s earlier instructions and emailed him written directions to have your silver transferred to Schiff Gold. Unfortunately, the Receiver has now changed his position and is treating your silver as if it is part of the bank’s liquidation estate, despite previously assuring both you, Qenta, and me that the precious metals were your separate property and outside of the estate.

This is inconsistent and hypocritical. The Receiver continues to insist that the gold still in Qenta’s custody is not part of the bank’s estate (and therefore refuses to take any legal action to recover it), yet he is suddenly classifying the silver—which remained under Qenta’s control until I personally recovered it back to the bank—as if it is part of the estate.

Because of this reversal, the Receiver is now requiring all silver owners to complete a full set of compliance documents before he will even consider transferring your silver. These documents are available here: https://epbprliquidation.com/legal-documents/. They include:

• KYC Form (Personal or Non-Personal Account) – Requires identity verification, proof of address, etc.
• Proof of Claim Form – Form A, already filed by most customers months ago.
• EDD / PEP Form – Enhanced Due Diligence questionnaire (only applies if you are a politically exposed person).
• Compliance Documentation Checklist – Requires supporting documents such as government-issued ID, proof of address, and in many cases, documents with an apostille.

These forms are burdensome and will create long delays, especially due to the apostille requirement on certain documents, which is time-consuming and expensive, especially considering that all customers reside outside the United States.

This means the transfer of silver will almost certainly be delayed by many months, and given the Receiver’s track record—he has not returned a single penny to any bank customer in over three years—the process could drag on for a year or longer. The only silver lining is that your silver is safe, and in my opinion it will likely be worth significantly more when you finally gain access to it.

The Receiver has also announced that he will no longer accept instructions sent to his personal email (the one I originally provided). He has stated that any emails sent there will be deleted. If you sent an email to him and did not receive a reply asking for additional compliance documents, you should resend your instructions to his preferred address: [email protected].

In the meantime, Schiff Gold will begin setting up accounts for all silver owners based on the personal information we already have on file, combined with what many of you recently supplied by email. A Schiff Gold representative will be in touch to confirm details and collect any missing information. All accounts will be ready to use, so if you wish to buy any additional silver or gold while waiting for the Receiver to act, you will be able to do so.

There is no urgency, as it is clear the Receiver is not prepared to initiate silver transfers anytime soon. But we want to be ready the moment he does.

Thank you for your patience. I will continue to update you on developments and press the Receiver to follow through on his earlier assurances.

If you own silver and have not yet emailed me to open a Schiff Gold account, send an email to me at [email protected] with your contact details and we will set it up. If you already sent me those instruction there is no need to send me anything else. 

Sincerely,

Peter Schiff

Sole Shareholder, Euro Pacific Bank

Published: August 18, 2025

Important Warning to Former Euro Pacific Bank Customers

It has come to my attention that Qenta Inc. is sending emails to former Euro Pacific Bank customers, presenting what it describes as an “opportunity” to resolve claims. These emails are misleading and deceptive.

Qenta no longer has any agreement to acquire the Bank’s customers, and its transaction with the Bank was terminated before it ever closed. Despite this, Qenta continues to hold approximately $70 million in customer assets—gold, silver, mutual funds, and cash—that were transferred to it in anticipation of a closing that never took place. These assets belong to the Bank’s customers.

Rather than returning those assets to the Bank, Qenta is now soliciting customers to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) in order to consider a so-called “offer” from an unidentified third party to purchase their claims at a discount. This is not a legitimate recovery option. Customers do not need to allow Qetna to sell discounted claims or sign NDAs to access what is rightfully theirs.

Let us be clear:

Your claim is against Qenta, not against Euro Pacific Bank. Your assets are not tied up in litigation and neither is the bank. They are only tied up at Qetna, as Qenta has unilatertally refused to return your assets to you, depsite the Receiver’s explicit instructions to do so.

Qenta has no authority to force you to settle for less than what you are owed.

Any attempt to induce customers to sign away rights or accept discounted settlements is a self-serving strategy designed to allow Qenta to profit from assets it is unlawfully withholding.

I recommend that customers demand the following in writing from Qenta:

Immediate sale of your mutual funds at current market value, with all proceeds remitted directly to you along with your full cash balances.

Delivery of your gold in the same form it was received, shipped directly to Schiff Gold for safe custody in your name.

Written acknowledgment from Qenta that you reserve all legal rights if they fail to comply.

If you wish to join the customer lawsuit against Qenta to enforce your claims, and to open custodial accounts at Schiff Gold to accept delivery of your precious metals, (incuding your silver which I recoved from Qenta and is now controled by the bank) please email me at [email protected]. There is no cost to you to participate.

I remain committed to ensuring that customers are informed and protected. I will continue to update you as developments occur.

Sincerely,

Peter Schiff
Sole shareholder, Euro Pacific Bank

Published: August 14, 2025

Subject: Urgent Action Needed to Protect Your Assets from Qenta

Dear Opt-In Customers,

Despite my best efforts, I could not convince the OCIF-appointed Receiver to take legal action against Qenta to protect your assets.

Under the Purchase and Assumption Agreement — which Qenta terminated prior to an initial closing, before securing regulatory approvals, and without onboarding a single customer — Qenta was obligated to return all cash, gold, silver, mutual funds transferred into its custody back to the bank.

Instead, Qenta proposed to liquidate the assets and return only their values as of September 2022, keeping all appreciation — roughly $30 million — for itself. On top of that, it sought to deduct over $5 million in unsubstantiated “losses” it claimed to have incurred. Out of approximately $80 million in customer assets, Qenta offered to return just $38 million, keeping the rest.

The Receiver rightly rejected this obvious breach of contract and unjust enrichment. However, he failed to demand that Qenta return the assets in kind, without offsets. Instead, he instructed Qenta to return the assets directly to customers — without selling them — and to follow customer’s instructions.

Qenta has ignored this. From what I can tell, Qenta is offering customers essentially the same self-serving deal it offered the Receiver: keep all the appreciation for itself and force customers to accept September 2022 valuations. Brent De Jong even falsely claimed in his affidavit that the Receiver agreed to such an arrangement. The Receiver not only never agreed, but “categorically reject” that assertion. Qenta only paid $500,000 of the $1.25 million it had agreed to pay for the right to “custody” these assets for customers. Why would the Receiver agree that Qenta should pocket a $30 million windfall at their expense?

I tried to stop Qenta in court myself, even offering to personally cover all of the bank’s legal costs if the Receiver joined in. But the judge ruled that I had no standing to act for the bank without the Receiver on board. Had the Receiver been included, we would have won, and Qenta would have ultimately been forced to return all assets to the bank — with customers keeping every dollar of appreciation.

My advice now: Do not make any deal with Qenta to accept less than the full amount that you are owed. Instead, I believe customers should join together and file a class action lawsuit. Qenta has no valid defense. These assets belong to you — Qenta had custody, not title — and a federal court can order their full return, plus damages.

We must act quickly so we can seek another TRO to freeze the assets before Qenta can sell, move, or otherwise encumber them.

In the meantime, I strongly suggest that each customer email Qenta demanding the return of their assets. This is necessary for the lawsuit, as we must show that customers requested the return of their assets and that Qenta refused to comply. Qenta was instructed by the Receiver that you own the assets and that Qenta must follow your instructions with respect to those assets.

For cash, demand a wire transfer. For mutual funds, demand that Qenta sell the shares at their current market price and wire the proceeds. For the gold, either demand that Qenta sell it now at the current market price and wire the full proceeds, or have your gold transferred to Schiff Gold. I will be able to set up custodial accounts for each of you, so you can continue to hold your gold and benefit from any future appreciation. You can then liquidate later at your sole discretion and receive the full value from your sale. I recommend the latter. That way you retain your rights to all future appreciation of your gold, as I doubt Qenta will comply with your demands.

On your silver, the good news is that your silver is now under the control of the Receiver. I was able to prevent Qenta from accessing it. Send an email to the Receiver that you want your silver transferred to Schiff Gold. Schiff Gold will create an omnibus account with Silver Bullion in Singapore which currently has custody of your silver. Once your Schiff Gold account is set up, you can either sell your silver or continue to hold it and sell at your discretion in the future.

For the Receiver send emails to [email protected].

For Qenta, send emails to [email protected]. Include your bank’s wiring instructions. Remember Qenta holds U.S. dollars, so you need to include instructions to an account that accepts dollars. Also, include that you reserve your rights to file a lawsuit if your funds or assets are not returned immediately.

If you are an Opt-in customer and wish to participate in the class action lawsuit, or have a custodial account with Schiff Gold set up, for either silver or gold, please send an email to me at [email protected] with your contact details.

I am covering these legal costs myself, though any contributions from participating customers are appreciated. If you are in a position to help let me know.

Sincerely,

Peter Schiff
Sole shareholder, Euro Pacific Bank

Published: August 6, 2025

Update from Peter Schiff on my legal action against Qenta,

Qenta has filed a motion to vacate the TRO currently in place that prevents them from selling the bank’s assets in their custody. Qenta does not even legally own these assets and should have no legal right to sell them—even in the absence of a TRO. The assets belong to the bank and its customers, who are the beneficial owners.

Most shockingly, Qenta claims that Opt-in customers should only be entitled to recover the value of the assets as of Sept. 30, 2022, and that Qenta should be allowed to retain for itself the approximately $30 million in appreciated value. Even more outrageous, Qenta misrepresented to the court that the Receiver agrees Qenta should be allowed to keep this windfall — and that the bank’s customers are not entitled to any part of it. Yet despite this, Qenta actually had the nerve to tell the court that it is trying to “marshal assets for the benefit of customers” and that my TRO is getting in their way.

Of course, I am doing everything I can to prevent Qenta from stealing what rightfully belongs to customers. It would be much easier if I had the active support of the Receiver, as Qenta’s main argument is that I lack standing, since the Receiver is the only one who can act on behalf of the bank. While the Receiver does not oppose my action, he has not yet joined in my effort. Qenta is trying to exploit this technicality, as it’s the only chance it has of getting away with this theft.

Sincerely,

Peter Schiff
Sole shareholder, Euro Pacific Bank

Published: August 2, 2025

Update from Peter Schiff

Dear Opt-in customers,

On Friday August 1, the Supreme Court of the State of N.Y., County of Westchester, granted my TRO request. Qenta is now restrained from selling, transferring, encumbering, dissipating, or disposing of any Euro Pacific Bank assets, including approximately $50 million in precious metals, $19 million in cash, and about $8 million in mutual funds.

On Wednesday, August 6th we have a hearing where Qenta will have to show cause why it should not be ordered to immediately return all transferred assets to the bank, under the administration of the Receiver, without any setoffs for alleged costs.

I will provide an update as soon as I know the results of the hearing.

Sincerely,

Peter Schiff
Sole shareholder, Euro Pacific Bank

Published: July 30, 2025

Update from Peter Schiff

Dear Opt-in Customers.

On July 12th Qenta informed you of its decided to terminated the purchase Agreement, which I subsequently consented to make mutual. However, when Qenta wrote on this website that it intended to return the “asset to the Receiver as they were originally received,” it actually meant liquidating those assets, but returning only the proceeds it would have received had it liquidated those assets when originally received on Sept. 30th 2022, depriving Opt-in customers of over $25 million in appreciated value.

But that is not all. Qenta also alleged about $5.5 million is unsubstantiated costs, mainly the result of delays that it blamed on OCIF, the Receiver, and other third parties, that it wanted to withhold from the amount returned to the Receiver. This would have exacerbated the losses it sought to impose on Opt-in customers.

Lastly, Qenta wanted to return the liquidated proceeds of the mutual funds directly to Opt-in customers, but only at their 2022 liquidation values, not their substantially appreciated current market values.

In total, Qenta listed having custody of approximately $80 million of the bank’s assets, but only offered to return about $38 million to the Receiver, 60 days following his written acceptance of their terms, retaining the balance for itself.

Qenta’s self-serving offer was completely unacceptable and rightly rejected by the Receiver, who reminded Qenta of its obligations to hold those assets as received for the benefit of Opt-in customers, and to coordinate the return of those assets directly with Opt-in customers. His subsequent reply to Opt-in customers themselves was to individually engage legal counsel to recover their assets directly from Qenta.

However, given the difficultly Opt-in customers would encounter pursuing such an approach, as a party to the terminated Asset Purchase and Assumption Agreement, yesterday I filed an action in New York court to compel Qenta to return the assets to the bank, under the administration of the Receiver, or at a minimum to freeze them in place until I can obtain a judgement in favor of the bank through arbitration, as mandated by the terminated Purchase and Assumption Agreement. This would allow the Receiver, with my help, to return all assets to Opt-in customers.

I am confident Qenta has no legal basis to unjustly enrich itself at Opt-in customer’s expense, and will pursue all legal means to prevent this injustice.

Unfortunately, this may further delay the return of customer funds, but Opt-in customers did not wait this long only to surrender half their assets to Qenta. To the extent that damages can be recovered from Qenta on behalf of all customers, they will be sought as well.

In the meantime, I expect the silver, which is currently still stored with Silver Bullion in Singapore, to soon be back under the Receiver’s control. I am working on a plan to quickly allocate that silver to its beneficial owners. I will post an update on this website with the next step as soon as I can confirm the silver is available for distribution.

Sincerely,

Peter Schiff
Sole shareholder, Euro Pacific Bank