Not upheld: scam - refund of authorised payments made under duress and manipulation complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M lost £10,030 to an investment scam after a fraudster opened a Revolut account in her name using remote access software and coached her to make payments to a crypto provider. Revolut declined the first large payment (£9,755) after fraud checks but processed a second payment (£10,027) after further checks. Mrs M provided inaccurate responses to Revolut's fraud prevention questions as instructed by the scammer. The ombudsman found Mrs M authorised the payments herself despite being manipulated, and while Revolut should have declined the second payment, concluded that stronger intervention would not have prevented the loss as Mrs M would likely have used alternative banking methods given the scammer's control over her.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mrs M most likely opened the Revolut account herself, had access and control of it, and authorised the payments, albeit under the scammer's influence and coaching. While Revolut should have declined the £10,027 payment given their previous concerns about the £9,755 payment, the ombudsman applied a causation test and found that even if Revolut had declined it, Mrs M would likely have been manipulated into transferring the funds through alternative means (as evidenced by her initial £250 payment from another provider). Therefore, Revolut's failure to intervene would not have prevented the loss.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website