Not upheld: fraud reimbursement / irresponsible payment processing complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs W lost funds to a job scam fraud where she was instructed to make four card payments from her Revolut account to a crypto asset platform. Revolut implemented fraud prevention interventions including questions about payment purpose and requests for destination account ownership evidence, but Mrs W deliberately misled the firm by following the fraudster's instructions and misrepresenting the transactions as investments. The ombudsman found that while Revolut had a duty to intervene and warn about fraud risks, the firm's reasonable fraud prevention measures were undermined by Mrs W's deliberate deception, making it impossible for Revolut to prevent the payments. The complaint was not upheld as it was neither fair nor reasonable to hold Revolut liable for losses the firm could not have prevented.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Revolut has a duty to intervene in transactions indicating risk of financial harm and provide proportionate warnings, the firm can only be held liable where it could reasonably have prevented the fraud. In this case, Revolut implemented appropriate fraud prevention measures including questions about payment purpose and investment fraud warnings. However, Mrs W actively undermined these protections by deliberately misleading Revolut about the payment purpose, following the fraudster's instructions to misrepresent the transactions, and ignoring Revolut's warnings. The ombudsman found that despite Revolut's reasonable attempts to protect Mrs W, she chose to follow the fraudster's advice over Revolut's guidance, making it impossible for Revolut to prevent the payments. While sympathising with Mrs W's vulnerability and the psychological manipulation she experienced, the ombudsman concluded it was not fair or reasonable to hold Revolut liable for losses that the firm could not have prevented given Mrs W's deliberate deception.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website