Systemic Risk Testimonial and Jurisdictional Concerns
Title: “Nexo Rekt Me – A Personal Account of Jurisdictional Evasion and Procedural Delay”
Submitted by: Joe L. White, Jr.
Date: July 01, 2025
Reference: Conciliation Request – Nexo AG
Framing Statement
This annex is submitted as part of my conciliation request and offers a firsthand narrative illustrating the systemic harm enabled by Nexo AG’s misuse of Swiss jurisdiction. The events described herein raise critical questions regarding the enforceability and integrity of consumer and privacy protections under the revised Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP, in force since 1 September 2023), particularly Articles 25, 28, and 32, which govern access rights, data accuracy, and legal remedies in case of violation.
What follows is both a personal testimonial and a cautionary account of jurisdictional evasion and regulatory impotence.
NEXO REKT ME
A Swiss-Badged Platform. A Cayman Disappearance. A Legal System in Crisis.
Swiss-Registered.
Swiss-Branded.
Cayman-Evading.
I am a 64-year-old U.S. citizen. Like many global investors, I placed my trust in Switzerland, not a meme coin, not a speculative startup, but what I believed to be a well-regulated Swiss financial entity.
I was on boarded by Swiss personnel.
I received Swiss-branded communications.
I was explicitly assured that Nexo AG was a “Swiss-regulated” company.
My fiat transfers were routed to a U.S. bank account designated by Nexo at Signature Bank but the relationship was presented and documented as being with Nexo AG, the Swiss company.
Then, the rug was pulled.
Refusal to Comply with Swiss Data Protection Law
When I filed a data access request under Article 25 of the revised FADP, Nexo AG responded with the following statement:
“Nexo AG has never provided services to you.”
This is demonstrably false. I retain records of:
- Onboarding correspondence involving Nexo AG,
- Platform activity referencing Nexo AG,
- Fiat transfer confirmations,
- Customer service messages, and
- Legal communication acknowledging my status as a client.
Despite multiple requests and clear evidence, Nexo has failed to meet its legal obligations under:
- Article 25 (Right to access personal data)
- Article 28 (Duty to rectify inaccurate data)
- Article 32 (Right to assert claims for damages caused by data protection violations)
For over two years, they have delayed, obstructed, and ignored these obligations, using corporate shell structures to deflect responsibility.
Systemic Exploitation of Swiss Legal Infrastructure
This isn’t a misunderstanding. It’s a legal design.
Nexo is using Switzerland’s procedural safeguards, especially the conciliation system, to shield itself from meaningful scrutiny. At the same time, it is actively denying the substantive protections afforded to consumers under Swiss law.
This includes:
- Refusing to produce legally mandated data under the FADP
- Denying jurisdiction while maintaining a Swiss corporate presence and brand identity
- Exploiting procedural delay to exhaust and demoralize private citizens
This is not simply crypto risk. This is legal arbitrage, jurisdictional gaming enabled by regulatory gaps and lack of enforcement.
A Legal System on Trial
Switzerland has earned global trust through its commitment to rule of law, financial transparency, and consumer protection.
But this case asks a sobering question:
What happens when a Swiss-registered entity ghosts its clients and hides behind a Cayman mailbox?
If a Swiss company can market to consumers as “Swiss-regulated,” while later denying any relationship, then the entire purpose of the FADP and the Swiss civil conciliation process is undermined.
What recourse is left for consumers when:
- A Swiss entity refuses to recognize a client relationship,
- The same entity denies data access rights under Swiss law, and
- The system allows indefinite stalling through shell structures?
If the answer is “none,” then the FADP is not a legal shield. It is a façade.
I’m Not a Whale. I’m a Warning.
I am not a crypto influencer. I am not a hedge fund manager. I’m a retirement-age technologist who trusted the Swiss legal framework and was left to drown in procedural denial.
What has happened to me is not a crypto anomaly, it is the result of a regulatory and jurisdictional failure. And unless structural enforcement improves, this will continue to happen to others.
Statement of Intent
This annex is submitted in support of a good-faith civil conciliation request under ZPO Art. 202–204. The claimant asserts that the conduct described herein warrants regulatory attention and damages due to misrepresentation and unsupervised financial intermediation. No proprietary platform information is disclosed, and all references are based on claimant usage, public materials, and industry guidelines.
Disclaimer
This document is submitted in good faith, based solely on the claimant’s personal experience and publicly available facts. No confidential or privileged information has been disclosed. All statements reflect the claimant’s beliefs or recollections unless otherwise indicated. Names of third parties are anonymized or redacted where not publicly implicated. The purpose of this release is transparency, accountability, and resolution not defamation or harm.
Legal Context Note
This annex was authored solely by the claimant as part of a lawful civil conciliation filing under Articles 202–204 of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code (ZPO). It does not contain any confidential statements made during the conciliation hearing, nor does it disclose settlement terms or other protected materials governed by ZPO Art. 205.
The annex is based exclusively on:
- Personal experience,
- Publicly available information, or
- Facts the claimant is legally entitled to share.
Its purpose is to document the legal and factual basis for the claimant’s grievance, promote transparency, and serve the public interest where legal oversight may be insufficient.
The annex adheres to Swiss privacy and defamation standards under ZGB Art. 28, the Data Protection Act (DSG), and applicable banking/professional secrecy provisions (BankG, StGB Art. 321).
It is not an official court document, and no information disclosed herein was obtained through the hearing process.