Not upheld: Cifas marker registration and account closure following receipt of fraudulent funds complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr I, aged 16, complained that Monzo unfairly placed a Cifas fraud marker against him and closed his account after he received £250 in fraudulent funds and transferred them to his brother. Mr I initially claimed he had been threatened and his card misused, but later told the FOS the money was payment from a friend's uncle for selling a mobile phone. The ombudsman found Monzo was justified in placing the marker because: Mr I failed to respond to Monzo's initial inquiry despite having reason to do so if innocent; his explanations were inconsistent and poorly supported by evidence; and the movement of funds suggested potential money laundering. The ombudsman concluded Mr I was likely complicit in the fraud and upheld Monzo's decision to place the marker and close the account.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Monzo had sufficient evidence to meet the Cifas standard of proof for lodging a marker. The key factors were: (1) fraudulent funds were confirmed to have entered Mr I's account; (2) Mr I failed to respond to Monzo's initial inquiry despite having every reason to do so if innocent; (3) Mr I provided inconsistent explanations - first claiming he was threatened, then later claiming it was a legitimate phone sale; (4) the evidence supporting Mr I's later explanation was incomplete and contradictory (his brother's letter contradicted his story about using the £250 to buy a phone); (5) the movement of funds to his brother's account without clear legitimate purpose suggested potential money laundering; and (6) Mr I's failure to immediately alert Monzo if he was an unwitting beneficiary suggested knowledge of the fraud. The ombudsman concluded Mr I was likely complicit in the fraud.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website