Author: Joe L. White, Jr.
Date: July 01, 2025
Reference: Conciliation Request – Nexo AG, Canton of Zug
Purpose
To illustrate how Nexo’s corporate structure exploits the contrast between Swiss legal reputation and Cayman legal insulation, creating a false sense of security for investors and regulators. This annex highlights the structural misalignment between platform presentation and enforceable oversight and how that disconnect enables procedural delay, record control, and accountability avoidance.
Risk Misalignment Overview
Jurisdiction | Perceived by Users | Actual Legal Structure |
Switzerland | Strong regulation, neutrality, investor safeguards | Swiss-facing shell entity (Nexo AG), no asset control |
Cayman Islands | Offshore risk haven, limited oversight | Legal control point (Nexo Capital Inc., parent group) |
Nexo markets the Swiss jurisdiction as a badge of credibility while contracting through offshore Cayman entities that operate with minimal transparency or user recourse.
Structural Features That Undermine Oversight
- Swiss Entity Used for Trust-Building:
- Contractual Enforcement Routed Offshore:
- Regulatory Accountability Gap:
- Cross-Border Delay Tactics:
Nexo AG appears in press releases, customer support, and public branding, reinforcing Swiss identity while obscuring legal terms.
Platform terms bind users to Nexo Capital Inc. in the Cayman Islands, where enforcement is impractical, especially for retail investors.
Swiss authorities (e.g., FINMA) disclaim oversight due to formal entity registration outside their remit, while Cayman structures lack enforcement transparency.
Nexo’s ability to delay data release, disclaim jurisdiction, and fragment its identity across borders severely impedes even basic procedural engagement.
Impact on the Claimant
I entrusted my lifetime of earnings to a platform that presented Swiss credibility as a core asset. The branding and tone of Nexo’s materials gave every impression that I was protected by Swiss consumer laws. Instead, I was routed into a legal structure where jurisdiction was disclaimed, data was withheld, and resolution was structurally impossible.
This is not merely a matter of poor communication, it is a design that benefits from evasion and ambiguity.
Swiss Market Risk
If this model is allowed to persist, Switzerland risks becoming a reputational conduit for unregulated offshore actors who leverage Swiss credibility without submitting to its obligations. That risk is not theoretical as I am living proof.
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.