IRS Criminal Investigation Chief Jim Lee June 30 20202 in Puerto Rico News Conference.png

IRS Criminal Investigation Chief Jim Lee June 30 20202 in Puerto Rico News Conference.png

How the Ivermectin of Fully Reserved Banking Was Targeted and Taken Down by a Weaponized IRS Just Before Its Founder Could Make Proven International Sound Money Solutions Available to U.S. Citizens

A Call to Action For the House Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government to Investigate What Happened to the Euro Pacific Bank in Puerto Rico

The Lawyer for the House of Representatives (Your Lawyer)

Many Americans are not aware of the House of Representatives’ ‘Committee on the Judiciary’, which has been called “the lawyer for the House of Representatives” because of its jurisdiction over matters relating to the administration of justice in federal courts, administrative bodies, and law enforcement agencies [1]. More unlikely known is the Committee’s portal for whistleblowers to contact or submit documents via email to Its ‘Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government’ (SS-WFG) is particularly appropriate for Americans who wish to see an investigation of the IRS for its targeted investigation of Euro Pacific Bank (EPB) and co-owner Peter Schiff.

This online article contains an expansion of the content of my letter, yes - the whistleblower’s letter, addressed to Chairman Jim Jordan of the House of Representatives’ Committee on the Judiciary on 03 Jan 2024 [2]; a print article with the same title in the River Cities’ Reader of 03 Jan 2024 was an abridged version of the letter. Notifying the committee alone will unlikely lead to an investigation; for the committee to take action, our leaders need to hear your voice specifically calling to support an investigation of the IRS targeting EPB and Peter Schiff.

Bank Closures of Two Kinds

Schiff started EPB in 2011 after the 2008 financial crisis; the bank tailored its offerings for what depositors demanded - Safe, Digital, and Global banking. EPB provided risk free international banking, foreign currency exchange, investments in precious metal and brokerage accounts, and mutual funds.

EPB moved to Puerto Rico from the St. Vincent in the Caribbean because of Puerto Rico’s more favorable jurisdiction. In Puerto Rico EPB could more easily obtain a direct relationship with the federal reserve and directly issue MasterCard, Visa or American Express cards – not because of more relaxed regulations in Puerto Rico but because of Puerto Rico’s better reputation for more compliance. In fact, EPB gave up the opportunity to take advantage of a bank secrecy law in St. Vincent when it moved to Puerto Rico. The bank attempted to refrain from admitting any U.S. citizen customers, but Schiff was intending to expand its customer base to include them.

Banking at EPB was risk free because it was a full-reserve (100% reserve) bank - meaning the bank did not lend out depositors’ assets. Its account holders could liquidate gold and silver into international currency 24/7, and utilize the funds with bank cards via ATM withdraws or transactions with merchants across 210 countries and territories.

Most of EPB’s customers were international companies. Schiff has nearly one million Twitter and over half a million YouTube followers of his regular analysis of financial markets, the federal reserve, predictions of the demise of the world reserve currency and other fiat currencies, the return to gold and silver as money, and criticism of taxation, economy, and monetary policies. Most of his followers did not have accounts with EPB. One might argue that expansion of EPB’s customers to include citizens of the United States was an additional favorable market opportunity.

On 02 Sep 2020 Schiff granted an interview in his home in Connecticut with Nick McKenzie of Australia’s network ‘Nine’, which publishes The Age and broadcasts 60 Minutes Australia; the interview was granted under the expectation that the questions asked were about the economy, markets, currencies, etc., not EPB. In the unedited interview McKenzie asked Schiff, “Peter, to prepare for this interview, I have spoken to some investigators around the world. They say your bank is facilitating organized crime and corruption, money laundering, tax evasion – is that true?”[3]. On 18 Oct 2020, Charlotte Grieve, Nick McKenzie and Joel Tozer of The Age published an article expanding upon the allegations and 60 Minutes Australia broadcast an extremely abridged and misleading version of the interview [4-6].

Below: Raw video and audio (48 minutes) acquired by Schiff from discovery in his defamation lawsuit against Australia's 60 Minutes. 

Below: Australia's 60 Minutes broadcast from the 48 minute interview above: 

EPB’s model supported investors who desired to embrace gold and silver as well as equities in foreign markets so as to insulate themselves from the painful effects that would likely follow if Schiff’s predicted demise of the U.S. dollar came to fruition. This option challenged central banks’ existing fiat currencies and their natural evolution to digital fiat currencies. Is it coincidence that the IRS investigation led to a forced closure and liquidation of the bank and the defamation of Mr. Schiff [7,8]? All despite EPB having implemented one of the strictest, if not the most stringent, screening process for account holders world-wide (more later herein). Unsurprisingly, EPB, its employees, and owners were found to never have utilized the bank to facilitate money laundering, tax evasion or similar crimes. The OCIF appointed trustee has still not returned account holders’ assets [9].

Meanwhile, the second and third largest bank failures in U.S. history occurred in 2023 - Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. Both failed banks were fractional reserve banks, i.e., they lent customer deposits. Excessively risky loans and investments led to insolvency. Most customers were made whole via the FDIC up to the maximum covered account level of $250,000. But bailouts of ~$0.3B to $1B (~1,000 to ~4,000 times the FDIC maximum) were also made. According to federal regulators and officials, the bailouts were a necessary “systemic risk exception” for Americans with bank accounts, i.e., to avoid bank runs [10].

The IRS & J5 Target EPB & Peter Schiff

The IRS, working in conjunction with international tax authorities of four other countries called the Joint Chiefs of Global Tax Enforcement or ‘J5’, targeted a bank co-owned by a United States citizen; the targeted bank was Euro Pacific Bank (EPB). On behalf of the IRS and the J5, Agent Jim Lee (Chief, IRS Criminal Investigation) publicly announced their investigation and named EPB specifically as their target. The IRS/J5 statement was coordinated with Puerto Rico’s OCIF Commissioner’s announcement of her office issuing a Cease & Desist Order to EPB in a press conference on 30 June 2022.

The OCIF Commissioner reported that the sole shareholder at the time of the press conference was Peter Schiff (a United States citizen) [11-13]. Lee and the J5 stated that their coordinated ‘Day of Action’ named Operation Atlantis related to suspected crimes undertaken by EPB and took place two years earlier in January of 2020. But an email from the Netherlands government to a EPB customer indicates the IRS/J5 investigation of EPB was active as early as 2018 when the J5 was formed [14]. The Netherlands account holder was warned in 2018 to close his account because of expectations that EPB would be shut-down.

Per Chief Lee, “During the day of action, each country independently executed enforcement actions consistent with the legal requirements in their countries. These actions included intelligence and information gathering, search warrants, interviews, production orders and subpoenas.”; in “a series of internationally led investigations” it was “revealed a number of clients used a series of sophisticated structures and international financial institutions to obfuscate their tax situations. These conscious attempts were for the purpose of evading their tax obligations and/or laundering the proceeds of their crimes.” [11].

The OCIF order was limited to accusations of failure to comply with regulations, not crimes, as affirmed by the Commissioner’s statement in the press conference that, “[T]he action is solely based on the lack of controls and lack of compliance with the requirements to operate, and the level of insolvency that the institution is. The action is not based upon claims of money laundering or other financial crimes.” However, the bank was not insolvent, as the trustee’s calculation on the same day of the press conference support [15]. And discovery in a defamation suit in Australia revealed EPB’s controls, screening of account holders and transactions, was proven to be very rigorous. However, Chief Lee and the J5 implied criminal wrongdoing in statements made in both the press conference and formal IRS/J5 media releases, all without any charges or any indictments to date [7,8, 11-14].

In the least, the IRS & J5 disclosures were inappropriate; however, the actions appear to be against federal policy [15] and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure [16]. Furthermore, the context and nature of what, when, and how the disclosures were made strongly support that the IRS intentionally misled the public and utilized domestic and international media to defame Mr. Schiff. The close collaboration of the OCIF with the IRS is highly suspect, not only because of OCIF actions, but because of the contrast between reported ‘facts’ and evidence Schiff obtained in discovery during a law suit with Australian network Nine (covered later herein). The bank was not actually insolvent, it used exemplary screening processes for applicants and account holders, and the OCIF did not permit Schiff to add more capital to the bank nor a qualified buyer to do the same while the bank was in receivership. Schiff ultimately agreed to liquidate the bank in order to support customers acquiring their assets as quickly as possible, 100% of which were immediately available but frozen by authorities.

The lack of evidence of crimes being committed appears to have led the IRS to an alternative course of action - to have the OCIF terminate the license of EPB under misleading and/or false ‘facts’ regarding insolvency and lack of controls. Per Chief Lee,

In full transparency, this is not where I thought we would end up two years ago when we were executing our global day of action with the J5. This is what we would call a non-traditional component within an investigation – there is no indictment of the bank or those running it today. But investigations sometimes lead us in a number of different positive directions and this is certainly one of them. One of the focuses of IRS-CI is identifying non-compliance and taking steps to ensure the bad behavior is corrected. … This cohesive approach ensures that all options are considered and the resolution is appropriate when considering the facts learned during the investigation.” (emphasis added) [12, 13].

False accusations and innuendos of financial crimes led to damages to Schiff’s reputation and monetary damages resulting from being forced to close EPB. Beyond monetary damages, the President and formerly co-owner of EPB died of a heart attack. His death is associated with an existing heart condition that certainly was not aided by the stress of the unfounded allegations.

Where There is Smoke There Is Fire?

The IRS, J5 and the OCIF effectively claimed that there was smoke, and assumed that there was a fire at EPB. Someone tipped off multiple media actors including the network Nine which owns The Age, Nick McKenzie and others (Nine et al) of the J5’s investigation of EPB. McKenzie published an article and broadcast a story about EPB and Peter Schiff, which led to a false and public fire alarm. McKenzie alleged that Schiff was facilitating criminal actions with EPB, and that Schiff had been questioned because of the same by the IRS on the Day of Action in January 2020. But four years after the Day of Action, EPB, Schiff and to Schiff’s knowledge none of its account holders have been indicted for any crimes associated with the bank. Schiff won a defamation suit in 2023 against Nine et al in an Australian federal court based upon seven imputations of criminal wrongdoing [17, 3-6] that were mirrored publicly by the lead investigator Chief Lee [11-13].

Evidence in Discovery Antithetical to Claims by Media Network Nine et al

In discovery during Schiff’s law suit, evidence to support claims by Nine et al about EPB customers with criminal records were examined intensely. One customer had his money seized from EPB upon EPB’s receipt and acknowledgement of a court order to do so in 2017; the customer was Michael Wilson, a dual citizen of Canada and the United States who pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2018 for scamming investors out of over $10M between 2008-2010. Wilson was not alleged to have facilitated the crimes with his EPB account; he also kept funds in bank accounts in Canada, Singapore, and the Grenadines that were forfeited as restitute to victims; no known action was taken on any of these other banks [18].

Another customer, who never actually funded or used his account, had a 25-year-old conviction with a suspended sentence; EPB had no way to know about because the public record was purged after 10 years according to local law [14]. How did McKenzie obtain a publicly purged record without the aid of government actors?

Customer Simon Antequil, a criminal who played a key role in Australia’s largest tax fraud case, had an account at EPB - but the account was closed before he had a criminal record. In fact, a few months after the account was opened, EPB flagged the account even though there was no public criminal record for Simon. Plutus Payroll, an entity used to facilitate the tax fraud, applied for an account at EPB; EPB rejected the entity’s application long before its illegal activities were discovered by authorities. Meanwhile, more than 100 Plutus Payroll accounts throughout the world at numerous banks existed [7, 14].

No apparent bank closures nor regulator actions were found to be reported on the internet despite the banks’ failures to avoid, flag, or report the activities that EPB completely avoided. Simon had colluded with Adam and Lauren Cranston (two of sixteen people charged), siblings and children of former deputy tax commissioner Michael Cranston of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Michael Cranston was cleared of any involvement. Adam and Lauren were convicted and sentenced for their roles in the Plutus Payroll tax fraud scheme that siphoned more than $105M that should have been paid to the ATO [19, 20].

Schiff says that discovery revealed that Nine et al ignored evidence that supports EPB and Schiff’s innocence and vigor at complying with the law, instead pushing misleading information as evidence for public consumption, trial, and verdict; former bank customers and referral agencies reported that EPB’s screening process was over the top, very critical, and antithetical to the claims of Nine et al (and the OCIF).

According to Schiff, McKenzie repeatedly requested that the Australian government reveal information about the ongoing investigations, according to Schiff as an effort to affirm the information his source(s) leaked to him that EBP and Schiff were under investigation for financial crimes. Schiff reports that Australian officials refused to do so, responding that it was too early and a violation of privacy for the entities and individuals under investigation - McKenzie was supposed to wait to see if there was an indictment before publishing details about the investigation and its targets.

Word Games: Agree to Pay Does Not Mean Settlement

In the Australian federal case Schiff v. Nine et al, judgement was actually rendered, not a settlement [17]. Respondents (Nine et al) offered damages in excess of the amount ordered by the court as well as Schiff’s legal costs. The extra damages were apparently a plot in attempt to gain the ability to word-smith that Nine et al had ‘agreed to pay’ so as to insinuate a settlement rather than a judgement. In fact, hearings on the damages continue in Jan 2024 as the Australian court case, heard by Hugh Jackman’s brother, requires verification of details related to Schiff’s costs as part of the judgment process – an activity that would not be required if a settlement had been reached.

Inner Workings of A Broadcaster

Nine sued Schiff in attempt to restrain him from publishing the unedited interview with Nick McKenzie that Schiff obtained in discovery of Schiff’s suit, claiming that the public should not be able to see the “inner workings of a broadcaster” [14, 21]. Nine withdrew the suit and paid Schiff’s costs for the abandoned suit, according to Schiff after the judge indicated that a ruling could be harmful to journalists Nick McKenzie’s and Charlotte Grieve’s career and reputation [14].

Does ‘Where There is Smoke There Is Fire’ Apply to the IRS?

Numerous questions remain unanswered that warrant an investigation.

  • Why did the government of the Netherlands in 2018 warn a EPB customer that EPB was going to be shut down? Is that disclosure an indication of the IRS’ intentions two years prior to the J5 Day of Action? What correspondence between the IRS and J5 member country investigators support that viewpoint, or was that an assumption made by the Netherlands government?

  • How did McKenzie obtain the information that was used to defame Schiff? McKenzie acknowledged on camera that international investigators had informed him of the Atlantis Operation – was it the IRS?

  • Chief Lee of the IRS gave contradictory information in the press conference with the OCIF. Lee insinuated illegal activity by EPB but announced that there were no indictments at the time. Lee claimed that OCIF actions were independent actions while also emphasizing a strong collaboration with the OCIF as a non-traditional component of the J5’s investigation. The Age, Nine, Nick McKenzie and others made similar allegations of facilitating criminal activity that were judged in an Australian court to have no merit in a defamation suit in favor of Peter Schiff.

  • During the Q&A session of the press conference Chief Lee acknowledged over a hundred ongoing investigations of undisclosed entities and natural persons, but refrained from commenting further due to the information being confidential. On what and who’s authority were the IRS’s Jim Lee and Justin Cole making the investigation of EPB public and insinuating evidence of crimes? Were these communications in violation of IRS policy or federal law?

  • Why could the IRS announce in the press conference and in a written press release that EPB was specifically suspected in facilitating offshore tax evasion and money laundering world-wide, simultaneously acknowledging no indictments, but refuse to give information on other ongoing investigations, including whether Schiff was under investigation?

  • Shouldn’t the IRS have kept the identification of the bank and its shareholders confidential until a grand jury had determined that sufficient evidence existed to warrant an indictment, as the Australian tax authorities had apparently kept the details investigation confidential when questioned by journalist McKenzie, despite being a J5 member country?

  • Did the IRS strong-arm the OCIF to force EPB to close as a “resolution [that] is appropriate when considering the facts learned during the investigation[of EPB]” despite facts that the bank was solvent and had exemplary processes and efforts to screen its applicants and account holders’ transactions? Was the bank effectively solvent (100% reserve) but deemed noncompliant with regulations tailored for typical fractional reserve banks? Why were offers to infuse additional capital rejected by OCIF? Why did OCIF claims that controls were lacking or insufficient while Schiff claims exemplary controls were revealed in discovery of his suit against Nine?

  • Why was the press notified of the pending joint J5 and OCIF press conference but not EPB or Schiff, and who notified the same?

  • If non-IRS J5 investigators leaked information about the investigation of EPB and/or Schiff, are such actions legal? If legal, shouldn’t government collaborations with other countries be conducted in a manner so as to protect United States citizens’ rights, such followed in typical American grand jury investigations? If such agreements fail to protect citizens rights, are the agreements unconstitutional?

Freedom of Speech and Sound Monetary System Under Attack

Schiff is a vocal critic of the United States government; has he been wrongfully targeted because of his exercise of free speech protected by the 1st Amendment? Was EPB targeted because of its operations supporting a sound monetary system based upon gold and silver? The above summary strongly support that Schiff was intentionally harmed by the indicated IRS actions. Such actions are highly questionable with regards to the release of information at the OCIF press conference, official press releases, and the IRS’ role in collaboration with the OCIF that led to closure of EPB. An Australian court has ruled that Schiff’s reputation was damaged through public opinion and judgement resulting from seven defamatory imputations made by Nine et al, all of which the IRS has publicly mirrored.

Double Standard?

A letter to the IRS Commissioner by Mr. Schiff’s attorney seeking an internal IRS review has not been answered [22]; multiple FOIA requests to obtain information relevant to the matter made by Schiff were not answered [14]. However, Schiff did receive an interim response to a FOIA request that was rescoped and limited to emails sent by Luke Rosiak of the Daily Wire to and from the IRS; in that FOIA response significant material was redacted due to “forseeable harm in releasing withheld information, or the information is prohibited by law” [23].

Shouldn’t the idiom ‘Where there is smoke, there is fire’ applied to EPB and Schiff also apply to the IRS and its management of the investigation of EPB and its impact personally on Schiff, let alone their original intentions regarding EPB?

Jurisdiction of the Committee

I find that IRS actions are certainly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary over matters related to criminal law enforcement, administrative practice and procedure, and civil liberties. Americans’ constitutionally protected freedom of speech is at stake, as are their lives, liberties, property, and pursuit of happiness.

Additional materials may well be available from Mr. Schiff, with some documents available on his blog [24]; he certainly can provide more details in testimony, some of which he has shared on his podcasts after he won his law suit in Australia. You may an approximate timeline of events and links to facilitate a deeper understanding and appreciation on the matter in the whistle blower’s letter, as my summary is not chronological and is too short to include numerous details.

I believe that internal IRS, J5, and OCIF records, if preserved, could reveal evidence of unlawful acts, such as leak(s) of confidential information regarding ongoing investigations to Australian media and intentions of shutting down EPB based upon known false accusations. Also, IRS/J5 public press releases may be in conflict with IRS investigation policy and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Silence is Consent of the Governed

Is Peter Schiff, along with Robert Kennedy Jr. and others, on a target list for exercising their right to free speech protected by the 1st Amendment? What will it take for you to be added to the list? The IRS conducted their operations in FY2018-FY2022 with between ~$12.5B to ~$15B; that number is slated to increase by ~$46B [25].

With less than 10 minutes of effort you can help protect yourself, your neighbor, community, State, and country. Exercise your freedom of speech and your right to petition your representative for a redress of grievances in one or multiple ways.

Local Representative:

The most effective route is to reach out to your local representative

  • Send a personal simple concise email to your local representative requesting their support; ask them to follow up with the House of Representatives’ Committee of the Judiciary regarding the whistleblower’s request for an investigation of the IRS targeting Euro Pacific Bank and Peter Schiff.

  • Follow up with a phone call to their local office and verbally request the same.

  • Consider engaging your local representative with other constituents at your representative’s office, acquiring and submitting a petition signed by other constituents from your district supporting the same.

House of Representatives’ Committee of the Judiciary:

In addition to contacting your local representative, reach out directly to the committee; let your voice be heard by expressing your support of an investigation of the IRS targeting EPB and Peter Schiff.

Crowd Sourcing Your Free Speech & Your Right to Petition Government For a Redress of Grievances 

As a whistleblower on this weaponization of the federal government, it is critical to document and track how many other concerned citizens alert their district's House representative, state Senator, the House of Representatives' Committee of the Judiciary or its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government to support the investigation of the IRS and its targeting of EPB and Schiff.  A tally and summary of the results may be helpful for our leaders to see when prioritizing their resources.

  • Carbon copy (cc) when you email your local representative.

  • If you contact the Committee of the Judiciary, send an email to with a copy of your comments and the date that you called or completed the contact form online (the form does not allow you to simply cc RCR, Lydia, or anyone); consider including a screenshot of your communication.

It is imperative to make public an investigation of this Weaponization of the Federal Government.

Otherwise, silence on this matter is ‘consent of the governed’.



[2] Whistleblower’s Letter to House of Representatives’ Committee of the Judiciary, 03 Jan 2024.

[3] Unedited 60 Minutes Australia interview with Peter Schiff, 2 Sep 2020;

[4] “Operation Atlantis - The day the international tax authorities came knocking”, Charlotte Grieve, Nick McKenzie, and Joel Tozer, 18 October 2020, The Age;

[5] 60 Minutes Australia’s Defamatory Broadcast About EPB and Peter Schiff, Apparently Episode 37, 18 Oct 2020; removed from internet as part of Australian federal court order and judgement.

[6] How Nick McKenzie and 60 Minutes Australia Defamed Peter Schiff, portions of the defamatory broadcast of 18 Oct 2020, clips presented in the sequence originally broadcast; Peter Schiff;

[7] ‘The Government Can Destroy Anyone’: How An IRS-Led Global Alliance Ruined An Innocent American Banker, Luke Rosiak, 13 July 2023, Daily Wire;

[8] Court Says Media Outlets Defamed Conservative Economist, Orders Them To Pay Massive Settlement, Luke Rosiak, 28 Nov 2023, Daily Wire;

[9] Euro Pacific Bank, Bank Liquidation,,Institutions%20(%E2%80%9COCIF%E2%80%9D).

[10] The FDIC has accidentally released a list of companies it bailed out for billions in the Silicon Valley Bank collapse, Lizette Chapman, Jason Leopold, and Bloomberg, 23 June 2023, Fortune;

[11] Global tax chiefs stand by Puerto Rico’s financial institution regulator as bank is shut down, 30 June 2022, J5 Press Release, Justin Cole, Director, Office of Communication at IRS Criminal Investigation,

[12] OCIF Press Conference, 30 June 2022;

[13] Remarks Delivered by Chief Jim Lee, 30 June 2022, IRS Press Release, 01 July 2022,

[14] Personal correspondence with Peter Schiff, 31 Dec 2023.

[15] How Criminal Investigations Are Initiated, IRS;

[16] Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6,

[17] Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales Registry,NSD1086/2021, Peter David Schiff v Nine Network Australia,

[18] Hamburg Man Who Fled Country Sentenced For Wire Fraud, Press Release, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of New York, 04 Apr 2018,,U.S.%20District%20Judge%20William%20M.


[20] The Unravelling of a $100M Scam, Paul Farrell, Ali Russel, and Meghna Bali, 29 June 2023,

[21] Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales Registry, NSD1400/2023, Nine Network Australia v Peter David Schiff;

[22] Letter to IRS Regarding Euro Pacific Bank 10-18-2022, 21 Oct 2022, Peter Schiff,

[23] FOIA Request – Interim Response, 14 Sep 2023, Peter Schiff,

[24] Peter Schiff’s Blog,

[25] IRS Rakes in Record $4.9 Trillion in Taxes from Americans Amid Enforcement Crackdown, Tom Ozimek, The Epoch Times, 22 Dec 2023.

Support the River Cities' Reader

Get 12 Reader issues mailed monthly for $48/year.

Old School Subscription for Your Support

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Old School Subscribe now.

Help Keep the Reader Alive and Free Since '93!


"We're the River Cities' Reader, and we've kept the Quad Cities' only independently owned newspaper alive and free since 1993.

So please help the Reader keep going with your one-time, monthly, or annual support. With your financial support the Reader can continue providing uncensored, non-scripted, and independent journalism alongside the Quad Cities' area's most comprehensive cultural coverage." - Todd McGreevy, Publisher