Not upheld: authorised push payment (APP) scam claim / investment fraud complaint against Santander UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S invested £16,739.92 in forward gold contracts through firm T, promoted by firm G, in 2023. Approximately one year later, T entered a CVA and Mr S received no returns, leading him to believe T was a Ponzi scheme. Mr S claimed Santander should reimburse him as a victim of an APP scam. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence to determine T operated as a scam on balance of probabilities, noting evidence of legitimate mining operations and infrastructure investment. The CRM Code excludes private civil disputes between customers and suppliers, and without proof of dishonest deception, Santander was not held liable. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Mr S' investment failed to provide returns, the ombudsman could not determine on balance of probabilities that T committed a scam with criminal intent from the outset. The evidence of T's mining operations, infrastructure investment, and lack of concerns from Insolvency Practitioners suggested alternative explanations for non-performance beyond fraudulent intent. The CRM Code specifically excludes private civil disputes where a customer has paid a legitimate supplier but not received goods or services as promised. Without sufficient evidence of dishonest deception, Santander cannot be held liable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website