Partially upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Wirex Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5736006 of 2025-09-03T00:00:00+00:00. Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Wirex Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5736006 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2025-09-03T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Wirex Limited |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | Wirex Limited must refund 50% of the loss from the second payment onwards and add simple interest at 8% per annum from the date each partially-refunded payment debited until the date of refund. Wirex must notify Mrs B of any tax deductions and provide a tax deduction certificate if requested. |
Summary
Mrs B fell victim to a cryptocurrency recovery scam after being cold called by fraudsters who convinced her to pay approximately £7,000 through her Wirex account to access a dormant investment. The scammers assisted her in opening a Wirex account and crypto account, and funds were ultimately transferred to the scammers' control. Wirex declined liability, but the ombudsman found that while Mrs B authorised the payments and scammers were primarily responsible, Wirex should have intervened at the second payment stage with tailored warnings and questioning, as the payment was significant, a substantial increase, and identifiably going to a cryptocurrency exchange at a time when crypto scams were widely publicised. The ombudsman partially upheld the complaint, finding shared liability 50/50 from the second payment onwards, and directed Wirex to refund 50% of losses from that point with 8% simple interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
While Mrs B authorised the payments and scammers were primarily responsible for the scam, Wirex had a duty to monitor accounts and intervene on unusual transactions. The second payment was significant, a substantial increase from the first, and identifiably going to a cryptocurrency exchange. Given published FCA and Action Fraud warnings and industry knowledge of crypto scams, Wirex should have provided tailored warnings and asked questions at the second payment stage. An appropriate warning would likely have prevented the loss from the second payment onwards. However, Mrs B also bears responsibility as she should have been more cautious about cold calls requesting upfront payments for an investment she only vaguely recalled. Liability is therefore shared 50/50 from the second payment onwards. Recovery attempts post-scam were not viable as funds had already reached the crypto account and been transferred on.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Wirex Limited, all decisions | 24 | 46% |
| Fraud reimbursement (APP scams), all decisions | 19,453 | 22% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 52,408 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website