Author: Joe L. White, Jr.
Date: July 01, 2025
Reference: Conciliation Request – Nexo AG, Canton of Zug
Purpose
This annex outlines the jurisdictional ambiguity and organizational opacity of the Nexo corporate structure, and how that structure has undermined transparency, legal recourse, and investor protection. It is submitted to underscore the importance of Swiss conciliation as the only practical forum for remedy and to highlight the reputational implications for Switzerland if abuse through offshore structuring is allowed to continue unchecked.
Known Entities and Roles
Entity Name | Jurisdiction | Apparent Role |
Nexo AG | Zug, Switzerland | Swiss-facing entity; used in marketing, credibility, and user support |
Nexo Capital Inc. | Cayman Islands | Contractual counterparty for customer agreements (per platform terms) |
Nexo Group Holdings Ltd. | Cayman Islands | Holding entity; likely owner of assets, intellectual property, and capital flows |
Despite offering services marketed and managed from Switzerland, Nexo relies on these layered entities to control legal exposure and delay jurisdictional enforcement.
Key Risks and Legal Concerns
1. Jurisdictional Arbitrage
Nexo maintains the appearance of Swiss credibility while placing its contractual obligations in a low-enforcement Cayman structure. This misalignment weakens legal remedy, shields internal operations, and evades accountability.
2. Investor Misunderstanding
Users, especially international ones, may assume that by interacting with Nexo AG in Switzerland, they benefit from Swiss investor protection laws (FinSA, FADP). In reality, they are unknowingly transacting with an offshore legal entity with little visibility and no local recourse.
3. Regulatory Evasion
The corporate structure makes it nearly impossible to determine which entity holds customer assets, sets policy, or controls platform decisions. This opacity frustrates compliance oversight, particularly when customers seek remedies under Swiss jurisdiction.
Swiss Reputational Impact
Nexo has capitalized on the strength of Switzerland’s legal brand while systematically routing accountability elsewhere. If Nexo’s tactics are allowed to succeed, stonewalling a US citizen claimant while using a Swiss entity as a marketing vehicle, it risks turning Switzerland into a safe haven for regulatory evasion cloaked in credibility.
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.