Not upheld: scam and fraud - investment scam, refund claim complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M lost approximately £350,000 to an investment scam perpetrated by firm X between June and December 2022 through his Revolut account. He discovered the scam in December 2022 after an FCA warning was issued against firm X. Mr M complained to Revolut in June 2025 seeking a refund. Although the ombudsman found that Revolut should have intervened on some later payments given their high value and suspicious patterns, the complaint was not upheld because the scammer's influence over Mr M was so strong that he actively circumvented bank controls by switching providers and was willing to sell his house and fabricate loan documentation to continue funding the scam. The ombudsman concluded that no reasonable intervention by Revolut would have prevented the payments or uncovered the fraud.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the legal starting position that electronic money institutions must process authorised payments, with Mr M presumed liable in the first instance. However, the ombudsman acknowledged that EMIs may take additional steps to protect customers from fraud where proportionate. The key issue was causation: whether any reasonable intervention by Revolut would have prevented the loss. The ombudsman found that although Revolut should have intervened on some later payments, the scammer's strong influence over Mr M, evidenced by Mr M's willingness to switch banks, sell his house, and fabricate documentation to continue funding the scam, meant that no intervention would have uncovered the fraud or prevented the payments. The ombudsman concluded that the scammer's 'spell' could not have been broken by Revolut's interventions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website