Terms of Service are structurally incompatible with senior protection. Older investors rely on marketing, not legal fine print and predatory platforms exploit that gap. Regulators must stop treating ToS as sufficient disclosure when seniors face disproportionate risk and diminished capacity.
Misleading marketing cannot be excused by fine-print terms of service. Regulators evaluate conduct, not disclaimers and for retirement-age investors, deceptive advertising creates harm long before the legal details are ever seen.
Switzerland is marketed as a safe haven, but for American investors, especially retirees, it can be a legal minefield. Secrecy norms, jurisdictional evasion, and fragmented oversight make recovering losses or even accessing basic account records dangerously difficult.
Offshore routing and data refusal don’t shield financial platforms, they signal risk. Regulators treat evasion, contradictory statements, and shell detours as evidence of obstruction and potential misconduct, increasing rather than reducing liability.
A Cautionary Note for Other Users One user’s Nexo experience — learn from it before it’s too late. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. This is not legal advice. This article is a public service warning based on firsthand experience and over 18 months of formal legal correspondence with
Swiss investors face systemic risks, yet regulators remain silent and Swiss media has failed to educate the public. This silence enables harm and shields misconduct.
![[PDF] Evidentiary Brief – Illegality of APR with Liquidation - Case 2025-000001](https://cdn.mymidnight.blog/14d9e8007c9b41f57891c48e07c23f57/2025/10/IMG_5212-1.png)
This evidentiary brief outlines cross-jurisdictional violations by Nexo AG, where APR-marketed loans were actually high-risk margin accounts. It includes legal precedent, investor harm, and forensic evidence calling for regulatory intervention.
![[PDF] DFPI Accredited Investor Reference - Case 2025-000001](https://cdn.mymidnight.blog/14d9e8007c9b41f57891c48e07c23f57/2025/10/IMG_5212-5.png)
Explains the definition and limits of “accredited investor” status under SEC Rule 501. Clarifies that accreditation is not immunity from misrepresentation or lack of disclosure. Directly rebuts the argument that being “accredited” nullifies claims of elder or consumer financial abuse.
Disclaimer
The information presented on InvestorJustice.org is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice.
InvestorJustice.org is an independent public-interest research and education platform and does not offer individualized guidance, professional services, or endorsements.
Readers should consult qualified legal or financial professionals before making investment or regulatory decisions.
Our mission is transparency and accountability — not advocacy for any commercial entity.
