Title: Predictable Harm and Regulatory Liability from Systemic Platform Failures
Author: Joe L. White, Jr.
Date: July 01, 2025
Reference: Conciliation Request – Nexo AG, Canton of Zug
Purpose
This annex outlines the long-term risk exposure Nexo AG faces if its structural, procedural, and legal deficiencies remain unremedied. This annex demonstrates that the recurrence of client harm stems from systemic design, not isolated error, and outlines foreseeable legal and reputational risks arising from continued noncompliance with Swiss and international obligations.
Factual Background
Across multiple jurisdictions and independent client experiences, a pattern has emerged:
- Delayed or denied responses to FADP data access requests (FADP Art. 25–28),
- Opaque platform mechanics regarding leverage, LTV, and liquidation triggers,
- Alleged unlicensed banking activity (BankG Art. 1, 3),
- Absence of safety features like stop-loss tools or risk visibility,
- Consistent misalignment with FinSA, UCA, and CO transparency standards.
If these patterns are not corrected, new clients, particularly in the HNWI and institutional channels, face similar risks. Given that these client segments demand heightened compliance, transparency, and data governance, recurrence would not only impact individual clients but potentially cascade into broader institutional reputational harm.
Claimant Perspective
I am one of many investors who entrusted substantial funds to Nexo in good faith, based on representations that it was a secure, professionally managed platform regulated under Swiss law.
The financial loss I suffered was not anomalous but directly linked to systemic platform architecture, risk concealment, and failure to meet statutory disclosure and suitability obligations under Swiss law.
If no corrective action is taken, recurrence is not a risk, it is a certainty.
Supporting Evidence or Reasoning
- Repeat Harm Evidence: Consistent complaints on legal forums and with regulators;
- Public Enforcement History: U.S. and EU actions establish Nexo’s compliance history;
- Swiss Case Law: BGE 133 III 97 affirms financial intermediaries’ duty to prevent repeat harm;
- Risk Amplification: Expansion into HNWI/institutional markets elevates legal stakes;
- Institutional Sensitivity: Banks and insurers interpret recurrence as systemic failure;
- Litigation Risk: Legal exposure grows with recurrence, especially under U.S./EU consumer protection law.
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.