Not upheld: scam / fraud - failure to prevent loss through inadequate intervention and warnings complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W complained that Revolut failed to refund money he lost to a scam involving cryptocurrency exchanges. The ombudsman confirmed Mr W was a victim of a scam but found that Revolut's jurisdiction was limited regarding cryptocurrency transfers, as cryptocurrency is an unregulated activity. However, the ombudsman could consider the exchanges from fiat currency to cryptocurrency. While the ombudsman determined that Revolut should have intervened by 21 September 2023 when Mr W exchanged £5,000 to cryptocurrency alongside substantial attempted payments, the complaint was not upheld because the scam chats showed Mr W was under the scammer's spell and would have consulted the scammer about any warning, allowing the scammer to advise him on circumventing the checks, making any intervention ineffective.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have intervened by 21 September 2023 when Mr W exchanged £5,000 to cryptocurrency alongside substantial attempted payments, any proportionate intervention (automated warnings with questions or human intervention) would not have prevented the loss. The scam chats demonstrated that Mr W was under the spell of the scammer, regularly consulting the scammer for guidance on how to circumvent Revolut's security checks. Therefore, Mr W would likely have shared any warning questions with the scammer and followed the scammer's advice to bypass the checks, making the intervention ineffective.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website