Qenta’s termination letter tries to rewrite three years of failure as “impossibility,” blaming opt-in versus opt-out disputes, third parties, and missing regulatory approvals. Yet it also admits the core problem: customers were never migrated, while Qenta remained in control of a portion of EPB customer assets and incurred costs as a de facto manager. It then proposes returning assets at their September 30, 2022 receipt values while netting out reimbursements and five million of unsubstantiated “termination costs,” an approach that reads less like unwinding and more like an opportunistic money grab. Brent De Jong tried to parlay the huge rise in the value of gold and silver into an unearned windfall for Qenta at the expense of the bank and its customers. Had the transaction been completed, Qenta stood to gain little, as most customers would have simply withdrawn their assets. But by opportunistically terminating on the proposed terms, Qenta would have walked away with unjust enrichment of tens of millions of dollars. As proposed, Qenta’s terms would have qualified as the greatest bank heist in history.
