Not upheld: Account closure without notice complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R complained that Monzo unfairly registered a Cifas fraud marker against him after closing his account. Mr R had allowed a third party to receive fraudulent payments through his account, initially telling Monzo the funds were personal debts owed to him, but later claiming he was helping a friend with business payments. The ombudsman found that Monzo had sufficient evidence of Mr R's deliberate complicity in the fraud, including his false initial explanation, the suspicious transfer patterns, and the lack of legitimate business purpose. The complaint was not upheld and the ombudsman declined to order removal of the marker or compensation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Cifas marker standard, which requires clear, relevant and rigorous evidence of deliberate complicity in fraud, not merely suspicion. The ombudsman found that Monzo had sufficient grounds because: (1) fraudulent funds were paid into the account; (2) Mr R gave a false explanation when initially questioned (claiming personal debt when he knew it related to business payments); (3) the account statements showed suspicious transfer patterns; and (4) there was no legitimate reason why the friend would need to use Mr R's account when the friend had alternative payment facilities. The ombudsman found Mr R's later explanation that he 'worded it poorly' to be not credible.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website