Title: Legal Consequences of Jurisdictional Arbitrage and Cross-Border Structural Evasion
Author: Joe L. White, Jr.
Date: July 01, 2025
Reference: Conciliation Request – Nexo AG, Canton of Zug
Purpose
This annex analyzes the legal implications of Nexo’s corporate architecture, which blends Swiss jurisdictional branding with offshore contractual insulation. It underscores the challenges this creates for investor protection, legal recourse, and procedural enforcement under Swiss law. The goal is to demonstrate why Swiss civil conciliation (ZPO Art. 202–204) remains the only viable forum for redress.
Known Entities and Roles
The following entities have been identified through review of public documentation and contractual materials. Their roles are inferred from platform terms, public marketing, and claimant correspondence:
Entity Name | Jurisdiction | Legal Role and Function |
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 and Enforcement Evasion 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 Misrepresentation and Misplaced Reliance
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. Opacity as a Compliance Obstruction Strategy
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 model succeeds in evading accountability while leveraging Swiss incorporation to attract global capital, Switzerland risks becoming a reputational conduit for offshore risk laundering. This contravenes the public interest purposes behind the Swiss Financial Services Act (FinSA) and the Unfair Competition Act (UCA Art. 3), and may compromise institutional trust in Swiss regulatory 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.