Not upheld: scam/fraud - customer authorised payments under deception complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Miss M lost approximately £10,000 to a task-based job scam in April 2025 after a scammer posed as a recruiter and convinced her to make payments as part of a supposed job role. HSBC processed the payments as authorised by Miss M and intervened twice with warnings about cryptocurrency investments and scam risks. However, Miss M provided inaccurate information when questioned, stating the payments were for cryptocurrency investment rather than disclosing the true nature of the scam. The ombudsman found HSBC not responsible because Miss M authorised the payments, deliberately misled the bank when questioned, and the funds were sent to legitimate accounts mostly in her own name. The complaint was not upheld and no refund was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Under Payment Services Regulations 2017, HSBC is expected to process authorised payments and the customer is presumed liable. However, banks should intervene if transactions appear unusual or suspicious. HSBC did intervene twice with warnings about cryptocurrency and scam risks. Miss M provided misleading responses when questioned, preventing HSBC from identifying the true nature of the scam. The first two payments were modest and unlikely to trigger intervention. Later payments were to legitimate accounts, mostly in Miss M's own name. HSBC could not have reasonably done more given Miss M's deliberate provision of inaccurate information and her apparent trust in the scammer. Recovery prospects were poor as funds moved through various accounts under Miss M's control before reaching the scammer.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website