Not upheld: scam reimbursement / fraud prevention complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss C lost over £100,000 to a romance scam involving a fake cryptocurrency investment opportunity. She met the scammer on Tinder and was led to believe they were in a relationship, causing her to trust the scammer over her own research doubts and red flags. Revolut intervened and warned Miss C about investment scam features, but she continued making payments after following the scammer's advice to provide inaccurate information to payment providers. The ombudsman found Revolut's warnings were appropriate and that further intervention would not have prevented the loss given Miss C's determination to proceed and her reliance on the scammer's guidance.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Revolut provided appropriate warnings highlighting common investment scam features, which matched the circumstances Miss C experienced. Even if Revolut had intervened further, it would not have prevented the loss because Miss C was under the scammer's influence, trusted them over red flags, and followed their advice to provide inaccurate information to payment providers. Miss C would likely have continued providing misleading information and ignored further warnings. No evidence indicated Miss C was vulnerable or at greater risk. Even if Revolut had blocked the account, Miss C would have found alternative payment methods as she had already done with other banks.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website