Case 3:25-cv-01501-PAD-GLS Document 14 Filed 09/29/25 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

WIGBERTO LUGO-MENDER, as the duty

appointed Trustee in the liquidation of

EURO PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL BANK,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

QENTA, INC.; PETER D. SCHIFF; BRENT

DE JONG; ET AL.,

Defendants.

EURO PACIFIC FUNDS SCC LTD.; EURO

PACIFIC SECURITIES, INC.; EURO

PACIFIC CARD SERVICES LTD.; AND

GLOBAL CORPORATE STAFFING LTD.

Parties in Interest.

CIVIL NO.: 25-1501 (PAD)

PETER D. SCHIFF’S RESPONSE TO “EMERGENCY MOTION REQUESTING

HEARING FOR PROVISIONAL REMEDIES, INCLUDING TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER, TO SECURE SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Rarely does a litigant confront a motion that is both patently frivolous and, at least in its

requested relief, entirely justified. Yet this is precisely such a case. Plaintiff Wigberto Lugo-

Mender (“Lugo-Mender” or “Trustee”) has filed what can only be described as an audacious

“Emergency Motion Requesting Hearing for Provisional Remedies, Including Temporary

Restraining Order, to Secure Satisfaction of Judgment,” seeking to restrain the movement of

certain assets allegedly in the possession of Defendant Qenta, Inc. (“Qenta”). (See Docket No. 2.)

The supposed “urgency” of the motion conveniently overlooks the Trustee’s own three-month

inaction after receiving Qenta’s “Notice of Termination of Purchase and Assumption Agreement,”Case 3:25-cv-01501-PAD-GLS Document 14 Filed 09/29/25 Page 2 of 10

through which Qenta purported to misappropriate tens of millions of dollars belonging to Euro

Pacific International Bank, Inc.’s (“EPB”) customers.

The Trustee’s claim of “likelihood of success on the merits” disintegrates under even

minimal scrutiny. He filed this suit alleging a conspiracy to commit fraud knowing full well that

Mr. Schiff never conspired with Qenta or engaged in any improper scheme, yet he advanced it

anyway. That fact alone undermines the integrity of the entire action. The Complaint is completely

without any legal merit: it fails to allege an “enterprise,” a “pattern” of racketeering, or a viable

conspiracy pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18

U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.; it attempts to plead fraud without meeting the heightened standards of Rule

9(b); and it hinges on conspiracy allegations that are not only false, but knowingly so. The Trustee

has stitched together a sensational narrative with no legal or factual foundation. So, the question

must be asked, does he truly seek justice for EPB’s customers, or is this lawsuit just a reckless

stunt?

By contrast, Defendant Peter D. Schiff (“Schiff”), whom the Trustee now accuses of

“conspiring” with Qenta, has for months been doing the very thing the Trustee claims to want:

safeguarding customer assets from Qenta’s dissipation. Schiff first sought a temporary restraining

order in Puerto Rico to freeze Qenta’s precious-metal and cash holdings. That motion was denied

solely on jurisdictional grounds, not for lack of evidence. Schiff then re-filed in New York,

obtaining a detailed TRO restraining Qenta from dissipating approximately $50 million in precious

metals, $19 million in cash, and other Euro Pacific assets. The Southern District of New York later

vacated the TRO on removal, not because Schiff’s evidence failed, but because the court held the

Trustee, not Schiff as sole shareholder, was the proper party to pursue the relief.

2Case 3:25-cv-01501-PAD-GLS Document 14 Filed 09/29/25 Page 3 of 10

The Trustee’s silence about this history is telling. Not only is it highly suggestive of an

insidious motive driving the filing of this action, but it also reflects the flaws in the Trustee’s

approach to EPB’s liquidation. A fiduciary genuinely committed to protecting customer funds

would have stepped directly into Schiff’s litigation, adopted the already-issued TRO, and pressed

forward against Qenta. Instead, the Trustee ignored Schiff’s repeated warnings, squandered

months of opportunity, and now burns customer money on a headline-grabbing but frivolous RICO

case and an overbroad provisional-remedies motion. That is not zealous stewardship; it is a

dereliction of fiduciary duty and a gross misuse of customer funds.

Still, because Mr. Schiff’s sole concern is the welfare of EPB’s customers, he cannot

oppose the provisional relief itself. But the Trustee’s motion, like his Complaint, remains legally

deficient, procedurally reckless, and factually misleading.

II. ARGUMENT

A. The motion does not seek relief against Mr. Schiff.

The Trustee’s motion seeks to attach and enjoin “all EPIB customer monies and assets …

under Defendants’ control.” However, the motion does not mention Mr. Schiff or highlight any of

the Complaint’s (false) allegations regarding his conduct. (See generally Docket No. 2.)

Moreover, the Trustee Declaration’s concedes that after June 30, 2022 OCIF appointed a Trustee

and Mr. Schiff “no longer held authority as a corporate officer.” Docket No. 1-1, ¶7. The Verified

Complaint and Declaration likewise fail to allege that Mr. Schiff is in possession of any customer

property. The Trustee identifies no account, vault, or asset in Mr. Schiff’s custody. The alleged

misappropriation and current possession of customer assets are attributed to Qenta and its

affiliates. Without a nexus between Mr. Schiff and any attachable property, Rule 64 and Puerto

Rico Rule 56 simply do not authorize attachment, garnishment, or a TRO against him.

3Case 3:25-cv-01501-PAD-GLS Document 14 Filed 09/29/25 Page 4 of 10

B. Mr. Schiff Sued Qenta to Recover Customer Assets.

While the Trustee alleges that Mr. Schiff conspired with Qenta to defraud EPB’s

customers, the facts tell a different story. The Trustee waited sixty-seven (67) days before seeking

any relief against Qenta. In contrast, Mr. Schiff acted within six (6) days of receiving notice of

Qenta’s intention to terminate their agreement with EPB, filing a motion to prevent the dissipation

of approximately $80 million in customer funds. He submitted a detailed emergency motion and

supporting affidavit outlining how Qenta, after assuming custody of these assets under a Purchase

& Assumption Agreement, unilaterally terminated the deal and refused to return the funds. (See

24-cv-1511 (CVR), Docket No. 151.)

Mr. Schiff documented Qenta’s attempt to retain half of the precious metals through a

“discount” scheme and highlighted the Trustee’s failure to take responsibility for the assets. He

requested the Court to freeze all assets transferred to Qenta, order a full accounting, prohibit

misleading communications to customers, segregate the assets, and allow expedited discovery to

trace and secure the property. (See id., Docket No. 151-2.) However, the Court denied the motion,

reasoning that Mr. Schiff was seeking relief against a third party, Qenta, who was not a party to

the action. (See id., Docket No. 152.)1

Undeterred, Mr. Schiff filed a “Verified Petition for Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction in Aid of Arbitration” in the Commercial Division of Westchester County,

New York, just eight days after the Puerto Rico District Court denied his initial request.

(See Exhibit 1, pp. 3–8.) His petition detailed Qenta’s failure to obtain necessary regulatory

approvals prior to closing the agreement, its unilateral termination of the deal, and its unlawful

retention of approximately $50 million in precious metals, $19 million in cash, mutual funds, and

1 Mr. Schiff later submitted an amended motion, which was denied. He also filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which

the Court likewise denied. (See id., Docket Nos. 153, 154, 156, and 157.)

4Case 3:25-cv-01501-PAD-GLS Document 14 Filed 09/29/25 Page 5 of 10

subsidiaries belonging to EPB’s customers. Judge Linda S. Jamieson granted the TRO, finding

that Mr. Schiff’s petition reflected a likelihood of success on the merits, and issued an order to

show cause to Qenta. (See id., pp. 1–2.)

Qenta promptly removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of

New York, where Judge Kevin Castel affirmed the TRO. (See Exhibit 2.) Following a hearing, the

Court vacated the TRO on August 13, 2025, not due to any finding of misconduct or conspiracy

by Mr. Schiff, but because, as a shareholder, he lacked standing to act on behalf of EPB or the

Trustee. (See Exhibit 3.) The Court’s decision effectively invited the Trustee, who indisputably

has standing to move forward, to pursue the same remedies in a more appropriate procedural

posture.

The Trustee goes even further in advancing a false narrative. In his Verified Complaint, he

claims to have “confirmed that the silver inventory remains under the custody of a third-party

custodian in Singapore.” (Docket No. 1, ¶38.) What the Trustee fails to disclose is that it was Mr.

Schiff, acting entirely on his own initiative and without any assistance from the Trustee, who

ensured that Qenta did not gain control of this customer-owned silver. Contrary to the Trustee’s

misleading claim that he recovered the silver, it was Mr. Schiff who successfully intervened to

protect over $10 million worth of silver that the bank had previously transferred to Qenta’s control.

Mr. Schiff demonstrated to the custodian that the silver remained the property of the bank, which

led to the custodian transferring control of the silver back to the Trustee. Mr. Schiff immediately

notified the Trustee of this development and urged him to act swiftly to contact the custodian. (See

Exhibits 4, 5, and 6.) Mr. Schiff then arranged for the silver to be released to the individual

customers who own it. However, that release has been delayed solely due to the Trustee’s refusal

to authorize the distribution of these metals to their rightful owners. It is wholly implausible to

5Case 3:25-cv-01501-PAD-GLS Document 14 Filed 09/29/25 Page 6 of 10

suggest that Mr. Schiff was conspiring with Qenta while simultaneously taking decisive action to

recover and return customer-owned assets. If Mr. Schiff had truly been conspiring to

misappropriate the $10 million in silver, he would not have gone to great lengths to secure its

return to the bank.

It defies logic to suggest that someone engaged in a conspiracy to misappropriate assets

would simultaneously build a meticulous evidentiary record, file emergency motions across

multiple jurisdictions, and ultimately succeed in obtaining a federal injunction freezing the very

assets he is accused of misappropriating. Mr. Schiff did exactly that. Throughout this process, Mr.

Schiff consistently urged the Trustee to join him in pursuing Qenta. It is unprecedented, indeed,

implausible, for a supposed conspirator to sue his alleged co-conspirator in two separate courts

while actively encouraging regulatory authorities and the Trustee to investigate and/or act against

that same party. This conduct is not consistent with fraud; it is consistent with someone acting in

good faith to protect customer assets. Furthermore, the Trustee’s decision to shy away from

litigation after a standing issue arose, despite Mr. Schiff’s repeated requests to continue, calls into

question whether the Trustee is truly acting in the best interests of EPB’s customers. Rather than

advancing a legal strategy that had already yielded emergency relief, the Trustee inexplicably

reversed course and now brings a sensational and baseless RICO action against the very individual

who took meaningful steps to safeguard those assets.

C. The Trustee’s motion fails to show a probability of success on the merits.

To grant a preliminary injunction, a district court must consider four factors: “(1) a

likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm absent interim relief, (3) a

balance of equities in the plaintiff’s favor, and (4) service of the public interest.” Arborjet, Inc. v.

Rainbow Treecare Sci. Advancements, Inc., 794 F.3d 168, 171 (1st Cir. 2015); see also Voice of

6Case 3:25-cv-01501-PAD-GLS Document 14 Filed 09/29/25 Page 7 of 10

the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2011) (citing Winter

v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008)). Among

these factors, the likelihood of success on the merits is the most significant. As the First Circuit

has explained, this element “weighs most heavily in the preliminary injunction analysis.”

Russomano v. Novo Nordisk Inc., 960 F.3d 48, 53 (1st Cir. 2020) (citing Ross-Simons of Warwick,

Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1996)) (emphasis ours). Accordingly, “[t]he since

qua non of this four-part inquiry is likelihood of success on the merits: if the moving party cannot

demonstrate that he is likely to succeed in his quest, the remaining factors become matters of idle

curiosity.” New Comm Wireless Servs., Inc. v. SprintCom, Inc. (1st Cir. 2002); see also Akebia

Therapeutics, Inc. v. Azar, 976 F.3d 86, 92 (1st Cir. 2020) (“We hasten to add that these four

elements are not of equal prominence in the preliminary injunction calculus. The most important

is whether the movant has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits—an element that we

have described as the ‘sine qua non’ of the preliminary injunction inquiry.”).

The Trustee’s Complaint is dead on arrival. Because it is fundamentally defective, he

cannot begin to show any probability of success on the merits sufficient to justify the extraordinary

relief he seeks. Most glaringly, Mr. Schiff’s documented lawsuits against Qenta, the very party he

is now accused of conspiring with, obliterate the Trustee’s false narrative of a fraud conspiracy.

One does not spend months fighting to enjoin and freeze $80 million in assets if one’s aim is to

“swindle” that same money. The Trustee’s silence on Mr. Schiff’s extensive litigation against

Qenta, across hundreds of pages of filings, is as telling as it is misleading.

Moreover, the Trustee claims Mr. Schiff conspired with Qenta to commit fraud on EPB’s

customers, yet nowhere in the Complaint does he identify a single misrepresentation of fact made

by Mr. Schiff—or by anyone else—prior to the critical moment when customers were deciding

7Case 3:25-cv-01501-PAD-GLS Document 14 Filed 09/29/25 Page 8 of 10

whether to continue with Qenta or opt out. That moment is the only plausible window in which

fraudulent inducement could have occurred, as it was the point at which customers were asked to

make a financial decision. If fraud had occurred, it would have been through misrepresentations

designed to influence the choice to opt-in to banking with Qenta thereby putting more assets in the

hands of the alleged conspirators.

Instead, the only alleged misrepresentations attributed to Mr. Schiff appear in Paragraph

84 of the Trustee’s declaration. (See Docket No. 1-1, ¶84.) Importantly, the Trustee acknowledges

that these statements were made after Qenta had terminated the Purchase and Sale Agreement,

which means they were made while Mr. Schiff was actively suing Qenta to recover the full amount

of EPB’s assets. At the risk of beating a dead horse, it is illogical to suggest that Mr. Schiff was

simultaneously conspiring with Qenta while litigating against them to claw back customer funds.

Moreover, the statements the Trustee identifies as “misrepresentations” are not deceptive

in nature, they are calls to action intended to help customers recover their property. For example:

• “The APA never closed and as such He agreed with the termination.”

• “Silver and metals pertain to the bank, not to Qenta.”

• “The Trustee bears fiduciary responsibility for mutual fund holdings transferred to Qenta.”

• “The Trustee has the silver, with a written authorization from him this can be transferred

to customers. As such instructed customers to request that the silver be transferred to Schiff

Gold.”

• “Opt-In customers should write the trustee via email to get their claims paid as He has all

the information on their accounts.”

These are not fraudulent statements, they are calls to action for customers to assert their

rights and press the Trustee to act to safeguard their property. If Mr. Schiff were engaged in a

8Case 3:25-cv-01501-PAD-GLS Document 14 Filed 09/29/25 Page 9 of 10

conspiracy to defraud, it makes no sense that he would encourage victims to pursue claims against

his alleged co-conspirators.

In short, the Trustee’s Complaint is utterly without merit. It does not plead the

indispensable elements of a RICO claim—no “enterprise,” no “pattern” of racketeering activity,

no viable conspiracy. Its fraud allegations fall far short of pleading any fraudulent

misrepresentation, much less doing so in conformity with Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading

standard. Most importantly, its conspiracy theory is not just false but knowingly false. The

Trustee’s claims lack both factual and legal support and, accordingly, do not have a likelihood of

success.

III. CONCLUSION

The Trustee’s motion seeks to enjoin assets currently under Qenta’s control, assets that

undeniably belong to EPB’s customers, but it does not seek relief against Mr. Schiff, nor does it

identify any customer property in his possession. As such, there is no legal basis under Rule 64

or Puerto Rico Rule 56 to impose attachment, garnishment, or injunctive relief against Mr. Schiff.

More importantly, the Trustee’s broader narrative of conspiracy collapses under the weight of the

actual record. Mr. Schiff has spent months actively litigating against Qenta in multiple

jurisdictions, seeking to freeze and recover the very assets the Trustee now claims were

misappropriated through collusion. He obtained a temporary restraining order in state court, which

was affirmed by a federal judge, and only vacated due to a procedural standing issue, not because

of any wrongdoing. These efforts are wholly inconsistent with the Trustee’s allegations and, in

fact, demonstrate Mr. Schiff’s commitment to protecting EPB’s customers.

To be clear, Mr. Schiff supports the principle of enjoining and recovering customer assets

currently held by Qenta, which legally still belong to the bank. There is no basis in law or equity

9Case 3:25-cv-01501-PAD-GLS Document 14 Filed 09/29/25 Page 10 of 10

for Qenta to terminate an agreement to purchase assets and assume liabilities, then demand a

refund of its $500,000 down payment and walk away with a $50 million windfall at the bank’s

expense. To prevent this unjust enrichment, a TRO must be awarded to freeze all assets that

belong to the bank, given the high probability that Qenta will dissipate those assets before the

bank’s claims can be properly adjudicated. That relief, however, must be pursued through

accurate, legally sound claims, not through sensational and baseless accusations. The Trustee’s

Complaint fails to meet the threshold for a likelihood of success on the merits, lacking the

essential elements of a RICO claim and falling short of Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard.

Mr. Schiff defers to the Court’s discretion on the appropriate remedy but respectfully submits that

the Trustee’s current approach undermines—not advances—the interests of EPB’s customers.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the Court take note of his response and

issue any relief it deems just and proper.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in San Juan, Puerto Rico on this 29th day of September

2025.

WE HEREBY CERTIFY: Today we have electronically filed the foregoing document

using the CM/ECF system which will send a copy and notification of filing to all counsel of

record.

DMR Law

Capital Center Bldg.

Suite 1101

San Juan, PR 00918

Tel. 787-331-9970

s/Javier F. Micheo Marcial

Javier F. Micheo Marcial

USDC-PR No. 305310

[email protected]

Date: September 10, 2025

To: Hon. Monica Rodríguez Villa
Commissioner of Financial Institutions (OCIF)
San Juan, Puerto Rico

Re: Euro Pacific International Bank’s Receiver’s Failure to Discharge His Duty to Recover Assets Wrongfully Retained by Qenta

Dear Commissioner Rodríguez Villa,

I write again to further address Receiver Wigberto Lugo’s inaccurate assertion that he bears no responsibility for recovering the assets of Euro Pacific International Bank (“the Bank”) that were transferred to Qenta under the aborted Purchase and Assumption Agreement dated September 30, 2022. That claim is contradicted by the governing documents, the Liquidation Plan approved by OCIF, and by rulings already issued by the courts.

The Purchase and Assumption Agreement clearly identifies Euro Pacific International Bank, Inc. as the “Seller.” Peter Schiff (“Schiff”) signed the Agreement twice: once as Chairman of the Bank, on behalf of the Seller, and a second time in his personal capacity, because he undertook specific obligations under the Agreement. While Schiff was a party to the Agreement personally, he was never the Seller. That role always belonged to the Bank. Qenta’s $500,000 down payment was made to the Bank, not to Schiff. Once the Bank entered receivership, the Receiver assumed full authority and responsibility for all Bank assets, including those subject to the Agreement. It is therefore inaccurate to suggest that the assets were “sold by Peter Schiff” personally or that responsibility for their recovery rests with him.

The Agreement also made clear that legal ownership of the transferred assets was contingent upon regulatory approval, full assumption of customer liabilities, and a lawful Closing. Because Qenta failed to onboard customers, never obtained necessary approvals, and ultimately terminated the Agreement, the transaction never closed. Under Article 6, termination required unwinding the deal, which necessarily means the assets revert to the Bank’s estate. The Receiver has both the authority and the duty to pursue their recovery.

The Liquidation Plan approved by OCIF on September 6, 2022, under Commissioner Zequeira Díaz, vests the Receiver with control over all Bank assets. It does not exempt him from responsibility for assets withheld by Qenta. To the contrary, it imposes on him the fiduciary duty to marshal and recover those assets for the benefit of depositors.

The courts have confirmed this responsibility. On August 1, 2025, the New York Supreme Court (Justice Jamieson) issued a temporary restraining order freezing approximately $70 million in Bank assets held by Qenta. That ruling was based on a detailed evidentiary record demonstrating both a strong probability that the Bank would prevail in arbitration and an immediate risk that Qenta would dissipate the assets. When the case was removed to federal court, Judge Castel of the Southern District of New York upheld the TRO, rejecting Qenta’s arguments to dissolve it. The TRO was later vacated only on the ground that Schiff lacked standing—because only the Receiver could bring such an action on behalf of the Bank.

Because the Receiver has maintained that Schiff was responsible for recovering the assets, Schiff attempted to do so. The courts stopped him, ruling that recovery is the Receiver’s exclusive responsibility. Yet the Receiver continues to decline to act, insisting it is not his duty. This creates a legal vacuum: the courts will not allow Schiff to act because the Receiver represents the Bank, but the Receiver refuses to act either. Qenta is exploiting this contradiction to wrongfully retain the assets, to the detriment of depositors the Receiver was appointed to protect.

This issue is compounded by the Receiver’s communications with customers. In his most recent letter, dated August 26, 2025 (but not emailed until September 5, 2025), he stated that he is still “carefully evaluating the appropriate course of action” with his legal team and “reviewing the remedies that may be taken.” But there is nothing left to “evaluate” or “review.” The courts have already made clear that it is his responsibility to recover the assets, and the facts leave only one lawful course of action. Delay increases both the risk to customer assets and the difficulty of securing equitable relief.

In the same letter, the Receiver accused Schiff of providing “false information” to customers when Schiff explained that the duty to recover the assets rests with the Receiver. In reality, Schiff quickly reviewed the options and acted promptly when Qenta terminated the deal and the Receiver did not. He obtained a TRO freezing the assets, which was vacated solely because the court ruled the Receiver alone has standing. The Receiver’s ongoing claim that he is still “evaluating” is simply a justification for inaction.

The Receiver’s treatment of subsidiaries also highlights the issue. In his letter, he admitted that Euro Pacific Securities, Euro Pacific Funds, and Euro Pacific Advisors “were wholly owned subsidiaries of Euro Pacific International Bank.” If wholly owned, their assets were part of the Bank’s estate. Yet he now claims these subsidiaries—and the mutual funds they held at Interactive Brokers on behalf of customers—“never belonged to the Bank” and are outside the liquidation. This position is indefensible. For example, the $19 million in cash held at Interactive Brokers came directly from customer deposits at Euro Pacific Bank, which the Bank placed in an account through its subsidiary Euro Pacific Securities. Under the terminated PAA, Qenta was never given the cash directly but was to acquire Euro Pacific Securities, which held the account. Because the PAA never closed, Qenta never acquired Euro Pacific Securities or the IB account. To now claim that these funds were never part of the Bank’s estate is unsustainable.

The Receiver has also represented to customers that the Bank’s silver account at Silver Bullion “remains frozen” by the custodian. This is inaccurate. Silver Bullion Pte Ltd in Singapore has confirmed directly to Schiff that they are prepared to release all silver to customers immediately, requiring only written authorization from the Receiver. He previously sent Qenta written instructions regarding customer gold, so there is no barrier to sending similar instructions regarding customer silver. The account is not frozen by the custodian—it remains frozen only because the Receiver has not authorized its release.

This contradiction further underscores the problem. The Receiver claims that gold held by Qenta is “the personal property of customers” and therefore not his responsibility to recover. Yet with silver, which he also characterizes as customer property, he refuses to authorize its release. This inconsistency has the effect of ensuring that customers recover nothing.

Silver owners have now waited more than three years. A single email from the Receiver would allow Silver Bullion to release their property immediately. Schiff has a complete customer list with contact details and amounts owed, and Silver Bullion is willing to coordinate distribution directly to customers—but only if the Receiver authorizes it. Customers holding both silver and gold should at least be allowed to recover their silver now, particularly given that its value has more than doubled during the receivership. And since the Receiver has taken the position that precious metals were never part of the Bank’s estate, there is no basis for continuing to block their release.

Every day of inaction jeopardizes recovery further. Delay increases the likelihood that Qenta will dissipate or conceal assets, making them permanently unreachable. Delay also undermines the ability to obtain equitable relief in the future: Qenta may argue that no “emergency” exists if the Receiver waits too long. Inaction both enables Qenta’s retention of assets and erodes the Bank’s ability to protect depositors.

Schiff has also made clear his willingness to assume the responsibility of recovering the assets at his own expense, provided the Receiver delegates authority. The Receiver has declined. This creates another contradiction: the courts have ruled the Receiver alone has this duty, but he refuses to act himself or delegate authority to Schiff. As a result, no one can act against Qenta, leaving depositors unprotected while the Receiver continues to draw compensation at the Bank’s expense. If the Receiver will not delegate to Schiff or act himself, he should at least assign the Bank’s claims against Qenta to a Litigation Recovery Trust, which Schiff is willing to fund and administer.

OCIF has an important role to play in ensuring the Receiver performs his duties. The Bank was placed into receivership to protect customers. Yet the Receiver appointed for that purpose is not protecting them and is preventing others from doing so. That failure undermines the very rationale for the receivership. If the Receiver will not fulfill his responsibilities, OCIF must intervene. Otherwise, the receivership serves no purpose other than to place customer assets at greater risk.

The liquidation plan approved by OCIF required the Bank to be wound down within 90 days, with all customer accounts settled and any remainder distributed to Schiff as sole shareholder. That short timeframe reflected the Bank’s unusual position: it had no loans or debts and held sufficient cash and precious metals to cover all obligations in full on the day it was placed into receivership. Liquidating Euro Pacific should have been easier than almost any other case. Yet more than three years later, the Bank is no closer to resolution. Not one cent has been returned to customers. The only party, other than Qenta, to have received anything during this period is the Receiver himself. This outcome is indefensible and entirely contrary to the purpose of the receivership.

The failure to resolve these issues also damages Puerto Rico’s financial reputation. The credibility of Puerto Rico’s offshore banking sector depends on trust in regulatory oversight. If OCIF allows a Receiver to neglect fiduciary duties and take no action in the face of judicial rulings and customer harm, depositors and investors will lose confidence in Puerto Rico’s banking system.

The Receiver’s refusal to act is inconsistent with the governing documents and contradicted by court rulings. His misstatements to customers, refusal to delegate authority, and continuing delay compound the harm by leaving customers defenseless while Qenta retains their property. These assets remain part of the Bank’s estate, and it is the Receiver’s responsibility to recover them. I respectfully urge OCIF to ensure that the Receiver fulfills this responsibility promptly, in accordance with the law and in the best interests of depositors.

Respectfully,

Javier F. Micheo

Dear Customers,

Today, the Receiver, Wigberto Lugo Mender, sent you an email that was dated August 26th, but in fact only went out today. While the date discrepancy is not the main issue, the substance of his letter contains serious misrepresentations that must be corrected with the actual facts.

1. Qenta Never Owned the Assets
Contrary to his claim, the assets transferred to Qenta under the Purchase & Assumption Agreement (PAA) always remained property of Euro Pacific Bank. The PAA was terminated before any closing took place. Both the New York State judge who granted the TRO and the Federal judge who later reviewed it agreed that if the bank brought an action to recover these assets, it would prevail. That is why the TRO was granted and then upheld. The only reason the TRO was later vacated is because the Federal judge ruled that only the Receiver has the authority to act on behalf of the bank. The Receiver’s statement that these assets “never belonged to the bank” is a total fabrication. Once he was appointed Receiver, all of these assets were frozen, and customers lost access to them.

2. Qenta Paid the Bank — Not Me
Qenta acquired custody of the bank’s assets and was required to assume its liabilities. It even made the first installment of the purchase price — $500,000 — which was paid to the bank, not to me personally. Any suggestion otherwise is dishonest and misleading.

3. Silver Holdings Are Not Frozen
The Receiver claims that the custodian froze customer silver. That is false. The custodian, Silver Bullion Pte Ltd in Singapore, has confirmed directly to me that they are prepared to release all silver to customers immediately — but they are just waiting for written confirmation from the Receiver, which he has refused to provide. The receiver is the only obstacle preventing customers from recovering their silver.

4. Subsidiaries Were Bank Assets
The Receiver admits in his own letter that Euro Pacific Securities, Euro Pacific Funds, and Euro Pacific Advisors “were wholly owned subsidiaries of Euro Pacific International Bank.” If they were wholly owned subsidiaries, then by definition their value and assets were part of the bank’s estate. Yet he now claims these subsidiaries — and the mutual funds and brokerage accounts they managed — “never belonged to the bank” and were outside the liquidation process. That position is absurd. The clearest example is the $19 million in cash held at Interactive Brokers. Those funds came directly from customer deposits at Euro Pacific Bank, which the bank chose to place in an IB account through its subsidiary, Euro Pacific Securities. Under the terminated PAA, Qenta was not given the cash directly but was transferred ownership of Euro Pacific Securities, which held the account. Since the PAA never closed, Qenta never legally acquired Euro Pacific Securities or the IB account. To now claim this $19 million of customer deposits was never part of the bank’s estate is indefensible.

5. The Receiver’s Contradiction on Responsibility
In his letter, the Receiver blames me for having signed the agreement with Qenta. What he leaves out is that the agreement was signed three months after he was appointed Receiver. By that time, he was already in charge of the bank, including approving the PAA, overseeing the migration of customers to Qenta and reconciling the cash balances — the latter two tasks he failed to complete.

More importantly, once the bank was in receivership, any rights or responsibilities I once had under the agreement automatically transferred to him. That is exactly why the Federal judge vacated the TRO: he ruled that even though I signed the agreement, I no longer had any authority to enforce it because the bank was in receivership. Therefore only the Receiver could legally enforce it.

Two judges have already made clear that the bank would prevail in an action to recover these assets. The Federal judge made equally clear that only the Receiver has the authority to bring that action. Yet instead of fulfilling his duty, he seeks to shift blame to me while refusing to exercise the very authority the courts have confirmed belongs exclusively to him.

6. A New Ask: Assignment of Rights
Up to now, I have only asked the Receiver to delegate me authority to act on behalf of the bank. So far he has refused. However, if he truly believes that the assets now in Qenta’s possession never belonged to the bank, then he should have no objection to assigning all of the bank’s rights to those assets directly to the Litigation Recovery Trust. If that assignment were made, the Trust could pursue Qenta in its own right, without further obstruction.

If he refuses, the Trust can still act based on the collective rights of customers who assign their claims directly to it. But an assignment from the bank would allow the action to commence much sooner, at a much lower cost, and with far less work. If he refuses even this, then his position is exposed as a deliberate cover-up of his unwillingness to act.

7. Clawbacks Against Insiders
As part of this effort, the Litigation Recovery Trust will also pursue claims not only against Qenta and its executives, but against any insiders or employees who knowingly participated in or benefitted from the misappropriation of customer assets. That includes unjust enrichment claims, and if necessary, clawing back assets transferred to Brent De Jong’s soon-to-be ex-wife as part of their divorce proceedings.

Next Steps
If the Receiver continues refusing to fulfill his duty, customers will not be left without recourse. I am prepared to do the Receiver’s job for him by moving forward with the formation of the Litigation Recovery Trust so that customers can collectively pursue all claims necessary to recover what is rightfully theirs.

I will continue pressing for accountability, correcting misinformation, and updating you on the actions we will take to recover what is rightfully yours.

Please note: this message is my personal update and perspective, and not an official communication from the Receiver or OCIF. You should continue to monitor their notices for formal instructions about the liquidation process.

Sincerely,

Peter Schiff, sole shareholder Euro Pacific Bank.

Dear Customers,

Qenta has once again circulated the same misleading email. Please ignore it. Their intention is to exploit the Receiver’s refusal to act on behalf of the bank and my lack of authority to do so as a third party. Qenta’s offer amounts to less than 35 cents on the dollar. Qenta has no legal right to hold your assets hostage and force you to accept a steep discount just to recover a portion of what is rightfully yours.

I have not yet taken any action with respect to the customer lawsuit, as I waited this past week to see if the Receiver would follow through on his indication to my lawyer that he planned to pursue an action on behalf of the bank. Despite repeated requests for an update, we have received no response.

The easiest and least costly path forward is a bank-led action, like the one I already won, but which Qenta had vacated solely because the Receiver did not bring the action himself. However, based on the email he recently sent to customers dated Aug. 26, I am losing hope that he will actually follow through. I will address his latest misrepresentations in a follow-up email.

Based on his latest email, I will likely have to move forward with the Litigation Recovery Trust for customers to collectively pursue their claims against Qenta and Brent De Jong, as well as any Qenta employees who knowingly helped or received proceeds derived from the misappropriation of customer-owned assets, or who were unjustly enriched at your expense — including clawing back any assets that may be transferred to Brent De Jong’s soon-to-be ex-wife, as they are now going through a divorce.

Our claims are strong, and two judges have already ruled that we would prevail in a lawsuit if the right party filed it. There are only two parties that can file an action against Qenta: the Receiver and the customers. So if the Receiver refuses to do the job he was appointed to do, then I am committed to doing it for him by creating the Litigation Recovery Trust, to pursue all customer claims, including potential claims against the Receiver personally.

The good news is that customer claims are not limited by the arbitration agreement in the Purchase and Assumption Agreement, so we can bring our case directly in federal court.

I will continue pressing for accountability and will update you promptly on the next steps.

Sincerely,
Peter Schiff, Sole Shareholder Euro Pacific Bank

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