This letter responds to Qenta’s representations to a federal judge and rejects the suggestion that Qenta is free to liquidate or dispose of customer assets absent explicit account-holder instructions. It reiterates the trustee’s position: Qenta holds assets as custodian, must maintain them without disposition, and also controls sensitive customer information that carries fiduciary and regulatory obligations. The letter reads like a warning label: custody is not ownership, and narrative games in court filings do not change that.
While the Receiver’s claim was true, this letter was not the appropriate response. What the Receiver should have done was join me in demanding that the judge uphold the TRO. His failure to do so proved fatal, as the judge ultimately vacated the TRO based on Qenta’s claim that I lacked standing to obtain it, that only the Receiver could act for the bank, and that since the Receiver was not also seeking a TRO, the one issued based solely on my action should be vacated.