Author: Joe L. White, Jr.
Date: July 01, 2025
Reference: Conciliation Request – Nexo AG, Canton of Zug
Purpose
To summarize the legal frameworks relevant to this dispute and show how Nexo AG’s conduct may violate Swiss standards governing investor protection, fair competition, and data transparency. This annex is not a legal opinion but reflects my understanding, informed by personal research and consultation, of how Nexo’s actions intersect with Swiss law.
Legal Framework Summary
1. Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP)
Under Articles 8 and 25 of the FADP, individuals have a right to access their personal data and to be informed of its use. Despite multiple requests, I have not received a full transactional record, pricing data, or internal platform-side calculations regarding margin calls or liquidations. I assert this constitutes a violation of the FADP.
2. Financial Services Act (FinSA)
FinSA imposes duties of transparency and appropriateness on financial service providers particularly those marketing to retail clients. Nexo marketed its platform as “secure,” “regulated,” and “safer than a bank,” without disclosing that margin lending and leveraged risk exposure were built into the product structure. These omissions appear to conflict with FinSA’s investor protection standards.
3. Unfair Competition Act (UCA)
Under Article 3 of the UCA, misleading advertising or concealment of material risk may constitute unfair commercial practices. Nexo emphasized Swiss-based credibility, regulatory alignment, and product security while failing to disclose risk of liquidation, lack of insurance, or the Cayman-based legal structure. In my view, these tactics created a distorted market impression and violated consumer protection principles.
Investor Rights Impact
As a retail client acting in good faith:
- I was denied access to basic trading tools like stop loss orders, critical decision-making data that directly impacted the loss of my lifetime of earnings;
- I was exposed to high-risk leveraged products without adequate risk warnings, disclosures, or informed consent;
- I was led to believe that Swiss jurisdiction equated to Swiss oversight, when in fact the platform’s risk practices operated outside that reality.
These experiences are not isolated failures, they reflect a systemic breakdown in the alignment between Switzerland’s reputation for investor protection and the reality of regulatory arbitrage practiced by digital asset firms like Nexo.
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.