Not upheld: scam / unauthorised transactions / irresponsible lending (loans obtained by scammer) complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr V fell victim to a crypto-investment scam after responding to a social media advertisement. Over three weeks, more than £35,000 was transferred from his newly opened Revolut account, funded by savings and loans obtained in his name by the scammer. Revolut intervened on 10 June 2025 with automated warnings about crypto-investment scams, but Mr V provided inconsistent information and continued making payments. The ombudsman found all payments were authorised by Mr V, that Revolut's intervention was proportionate, and that further intervention would not likely have prevented the losses given the scammer's control over Mr V and his willingness to provide false information to banks.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that all payments were authorised by Mr V, even though he was deceived about their purpose. While Revolut is expected to be alert to fraud risks and take proportionate steps, the ombudsman was not persuaded that further intervention would have prevented the losses. Mr V provided misleading information to both Revolut and Bank H despite receiving clear warnings, and the scammer had significant influence over him. The ombudsman noted that Mr V's responses to Revolut's intervention questions were inconsistent with what he later disclosed, and that he had been instructed by the scammer on what to say to banks. Given this level of influence and deception, the ombudsman concluded that Mr V would likely have continued following the scammer's guidance or found another way to misrepresent the payments.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website