Author: Joe L. White, Jr.
Date: July 01, 2025
Reference: Conciliation Request – Nexo AG, Canton of Zug
Purpose
To document how public award programs were leveraged by Nexo AG to create the illusion of regulatory legitimacy, while simultaneously refusing to meet basic legal obligations to affected users under Swiss and international law.
Background
In March 2025, Nexo AG received its third consecutive “Best Cryptocurrency Wallet” award from the FinTech Breakthrough Committee. This occurred while I, the claimant, was actively pursuing legal remedies against Nexo in Switzerland for:
- Misrepresentation of account structure and liquidation exposure;
- Refusal to provide account records under FADP;
- Systematic jurisdictional obfuscation involving offshore entities.
Award committees operate independently, and I do not allege intentional wrongdoing on their part. However, the information used to grant these awards appears to have been based on misleading impressions curated by Nexo’s marketing team and impressions that do not survive even cursory legal scrutiny.
Observed Patterns of Abuse
Obstruction of Access
Despite multiple lawful requests and attorney involvement, Nexo AG has never provided my full account history or transaction audit trail. Exported data is crippled and inadequate for rebuilding account transaction details, timestamps, asset classification, trade IDs and more.
Jurisdictional Denial
In January 2025, Nexo formally denied ever having had a relationship with me, despite receiving SWIFT wire transfer of USD 1 million directly into its Swiss corporate bank account.
In response to basic FADP request,
“Nexo AG has never provided any services to Mr. xxxx and is thus not in possession of such documents set forth in your information request.”
Governance Evasion
Nexo’s legal structure, a Swiss entity operating under a Cayman master brand, has been used to bypass the transparency standards normally expected of firms operating in Swiss financial markets. There is no public record of a FINMA license or SRO membership.
Award Misuse as Reputational Shield
Public recognition from high-profile awards has allowed Nexo to:
- Maintain the appearance of trustworthiness with regulators and users;
- Inhibit scrutiny by banks, counterparties, and law enforcement;
- Divert attention from unresolved customer harm and structural legal violations.
This reputational laundering impedes enforcement. I view it as a direct barrier to fair resolution.
Personal Impact and Strategic Relevance
As a claimant, I have no wish to tarnish the reputations of awards organizations. But in the context of ongoing litigation, such recognitions, when issued without independent verification, can compound user risk and delay justice.
This annex is submitted to ensure that public recognition is not used to silence or delay valid legal claims.
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.