Not upheld: Unauthorised transactions / scam / fraud complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

X complained that Revolut held her liable for £30,700 in cryptocurrency exchanges and withdrawals that she claimed were unauthorised and lost to a scam. She had responded to a fraudulent investment advert and made an initial £5,000 payment, followed by six additional transactions totalling £30,700 exchanged to cryptocurrency and withdrawn to an external wallet. The ombudsman found that X likely authorised these payments herself, despite being deceived by scammers, based on audit evidence showing transactions from her usual device, her awareness of the transfers as evidenced by phone calls and in-app chat messages, and the implausibility of a scammer accessing her account to communicate with Revolut. Although acknowledging X's victimisation, the ombudsman determined Revolut took proportionate fraud prevention steps and that further intervention would likely not have prevented the loss given X's resistance to questioning.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that X likely authorised the payments herself, albeit under deception from scammers, based on: (1) audit evidence showing transactions from X's usual device; (2) Revolut's security measures making remote access unlikely; (3) X's awareness of the external transfers as evidenced by phone calls and in-app chat; (4) the implausibility of a scammer accessing X's profile to communicate with Revolut; and (5) linguistic consistency in messages X disputed sending. Under the Payment Services Regulations 2017, X is therefore liable for authorised payments. Regarding Revolut's fault, while the ombudsman acknowledged X fell victim to a scam, Revolut did identify risky withdrawals and intervened appropriately. X's resistance to Revolut's questioning and the scammer's social engineering made it unlikely further intervention would have prevented the loss.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website