How Nexo Structures Itself to Avoid Accountability - Case 2025-000001

When something goes wrong with a financial company, accountability depends on knowing who is responsible and where they are regulated. With Nexo, investors quickly discover that responsibility is scattered across multiple jurisdictions, creating a maze that makes redress nearly impossible.

The Global Entity Shell Game

Nexo presents itself as a single platform. But behind the app and marketing, its operations are split across multiple entities in different jurisdictions:

• Nexo AG (Switzerland): Positioned as the “official” European entity, but often disclaims responsibility for direct customer relationships.
• Nexo Capital Inc. (Cayman Islands): Offshore corporate structure that shields liability and limits investor remedies.
• U.S. banking partners: Accounts and transactions routed through U.S. institutions, yet outside U.S. securities regulation.
• Other affiliates: Entities registered in the U.K., Lithuania, and elsewhere, often referenced in Terms of Service (ToS).

This fragmentation allows Nexo to point in different directions depending on the issue — Switzerland for legitimacy, Cayman for liability, the U.S. for banking.

Terms of Service: Clause Deleted, Then Reconstructed

Nexo’s Terms of Service are not just routine legal text, they define where and how investors can seek redress. In 2023, Nexo AG quietly deleted a clause that explicitly allowed users to initiate proceedings in Switzerland under ZPO Article 202 conciliation.

• The clause appeared in archived versions through August 2023.
• It was removed in October 2023, at the same time legal pressure was escalating.
• Nexo’s November 29, 2023 “update” email to clients cited “growth” and “regulatory developments,” but never disclosed the deletion.

InvestorJustice.org has published a forensic exhibit that documents this removal: Reconstructed Record of Deleted Nexo ToS Changes.

The report shows how the deletion stripped investors of a Swiss procedural remedy, replacing it with vague international arbitration language. Under Swiss law, this is more than editing:

• It violates good faith (ZGB Art. 2).
• It undermines legitimate expectation (Vertrauensschutz).
• It breaches transparency obligations (OR Art. 8).

The timing and concealment support the conclusion that this was not an accident, but part of a strategy to reduce jurisdictional exposure.

Why Jurisdictional Evasion Matters

For investors — particularly seniors — this structure means:

• No clear path to redress. Regulators and courts deflect responsibility across borders.
• Records requests denied. As documented in my own FADP case, Nexo AG claimed it never held my records, despite confirmed wire transfers to its U.S. banking partner.
• Fragmented oversight. Each regulator sees only a partial picture while Nexo markets itself as a seamless global platform.

The result is an accountability gap: investors can lose life savings with no clear path to recover, while regulators struggle to assert jurisdiction.

A Broader Playbook

Nexo’s model is not unique. It represents a playbook for cross-border evasion:

• Offshore incorporation for liability protection.
• Swiss or EU presence for legitimacy.
• U.S. banking for customer access.
• Deleted or rewritten ToS to obscure obligations.

Without systemic change, other companies will follow the same script.

📌 InvestorJustice.org has published the AI-assisted “Reconstructed Record of Deleted Nexo ToS Changes” and will provide supporting material to regulators, journalists, or counsel upon verified request.

If you or someone you know has been harmed by Nexo or another financial company using similar tactics, I encourage you to share your story.

Accountability starts with exposure.