Not upheld: scam protection - inadequate intervention and warnings complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D was victim of a cryptocurrency investment scam and lost funds by exchanging fiat currency to cryptocurrency through his Revolut account on 15 occasions between May and July 2025, then withdrawing the cryptocurrency 28 times. Revolut did not intervene in the exchanges but did intervene in the withdrawals, providing warnings about cryptocurrency investment scams and telling Mr D he was likely being scammed. Mr D complained that Revolut's interventions were inadequate and should have prevented his loss. The ombudsman found that while the pattern of exchanges was unusual and arguably should have triggered earlier intervention, Revolut's actual interventions demonstrated it would have provided adequate warnings, and Mr D proceeded despite explicit warnings that he was being scammed. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While the ombudsman acknowledged that the pattern of exchanges was unusual and arguably should have triggered intervention, the key question was whether Revolut could reasonably have done more to protect Mr D. The ombudsman found that Revolut's actual interventions on the withdrawal stage demonstrated it would have provided clear, specific warnings about cryptocurrency investment scams had it intervened earlier. Since Mr D proceeded despite being explicitly told by Revolut that he was likely being scammed and was provided with scam awareness resources, the ombudsman concluded Revolut had taken reasonable steps. The ombudsman also noted that preventing the exchange of Mr D's own funds for cryptocurrency would fall outside the service's remit.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website