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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H lost £2,200 to an investment scam through his Revolut account in August and September 2025, with funds sent to another bank and cryptocurrency provider before reaching scammers. Revolut declined to reimburse the loss, and Mr H complained to the FOS. The ombudsman found that while Revolut should monitor accounts for fraud risks, the modest payment values, lack of rapid succession, newly opened account status, and destination to an account in Mr H's name did not warrant additional intervention beyond the 'new payee' warning provided. The complaint was not upheld, and Revolut was not required to refund the loss.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman considered whether Revolut should have identified the transactions as unusual or suspicious. The account was newly opened with limited prior activity, making it difficult to establish that the transactions were unusual for Mr H. The payment values were modest and not made in quick succession, which would not typically trigger heightened concern. Some payments were to an account in Mr H's name, which provided some reassurance against fraud. While cryptocurrency fraud is a known risk, not all cryptocurrency payments are scam-related. The 'new payee' warning provided was fair and proportionate given the payment size and circumstances. The ombudsman found that Revolut processed high volumes of transactions and must balance allowing customer account use against questioning transactions. Overall, Revolut was not required to intervene further or provide additional warnings.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website