Not upheld: negative fraud marker / account closure complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained that Monzo unfairly loaded a negative fraud marker against him after a fraudulent £80 payment was received into his account. Mr M claimed he was helping a friend without UK banking access by receiving and forwarding funds. However, the ombudsman found significant inconsistencies in Mr M's account: the sender's name did not match, the stated reason for payment (grocery reimbursement) contradicted his friend's messages about 'running deals', and the fraudulent funds were converted to Nigerian currency and transferred to an account in Mr M's name with no evidence they reached his friend. The ombudsman concluded Monzo fairly determined Mr M was complicit in receiving fraudulent funds and upheld the marker.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while a financial crime was clearly committed, Monzo also needed to demonstrate that Mr M was complicit in receiving fraudulent funds. The ombudsman identified several inconsistencies: the name on messages from the sender did not match the actual sender; the stated reason for the payment (grocery reimbursement) contradicted Mr M's friend's messages about 'running deals'; and the fraudulent funds were converted to Nigerian currency and transferred to an account in Mr M's name with no evidence they were passed to his friend. The ombudsman found it surprising that Mr M agreed to receive funds from unknown third parties and did not question the discrepancy between the stated purpose and his friend's messages. These factors collectively demonstrated complicity.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website