Not upheld: CIFAS fraud marker lodgement complaint against Starling Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr O complained that Starling Bank Limited improperly lodged a CIFAS fraud marker on his account after he received £8,750 from a scam victim in April 2022. Mr O initially claimed the money was from selling clothes but could not provide evidence. The ombudsman found that Starling had sufficient evidence to lodge the marker, including a fraud report from another bank, Mr O's inconsistent explanation, lack of supporting evidence, and spending patterns on cryptocurrency and cash withdrawals. Mr O's subsequent explanation to the ombudsman (a loan for an online trading course) differed significantly from his original story and was not credible. The ombudsman concluded that Mr O was in receipt of fraudulent funds and knew this was the case, and therefore Starling acted properly in lodging the marker.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the CIFAS requirements that there must be reasonable grounds to believe an identified fraud has been committed and the evidence must be clear, relevant and rigorous. The ombudsman found that Starling had sufficient evidence: a fraud report from another bank, an inconsistent explanation from Mr O, lack of supporting evidence, and spending patterns inconsistent with the stated purpose. The ombudsman noted that Mr O's subsequent explanation to the ombudsman (online trading course loan) differed significantly from his original story to Starling and was not credible. The ombudsman concluded that the evidence showed Mr O was in receipt of fraudulent funds and knew this was the case.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website