Not upheld: scam / fraud - failure to prevent losses complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs K lost almost £8,000 to an employment scam after being contacted by a fraudster posing as a recruiter. She made an initial push-to-card payment of £50 and then exchanged fiat currency into cryptocurrency through her Revolut account, sending it to the scammer. When Revolut intervened on some crypto-withdrawals, Mrs K provided misleading responses to security questions, confirming she was investing legitimately and not being pressured. The ombudsman found that Revolut's interventions were appropriate and proportionate, and that even if the firm had intervened at the final fiat-to-cryptocurrency exchange, it was unlikely to have prevented the losses given Mrs K's misleading responses and the scammer's coaching. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which require firms to execute authorised payment instructions without undue delay. While Mrs K authorised the transactions, the ombudsman considered whether Revolut should have intervened. Although Revolut could arguably have intervened on the final fiat-to-cryptocurrency exchange on 27 June 2025, the firm's earlier interventions were appropriate and proportionate. Critically, Mrs K's responses to Revolut's security questions were misleading - she confirmed she was investing, not being pressured, and not following instructions, when the opposite was true. The ombudsman found that even if Revolut had intervened at the final exchange, it was unlikely to have prevented the losses given Mrs K's coaching by the scammer to avoid detection and her misleading responses to direct questions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website