Not upheld: scam - investment fraud via cryptocurrency complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs L lost £51,447.38 to an investment scam between February 2022 and September 2023, using her Revolut account to send funds to cryptocurrency providers which were then forwarded to the scammer. She complained that Revolut failed to protect her from financial harm. Revolut intervened on one £8,000 payment in August 2025, providing warnings and asking questions about common scam indicators, but Mrs L provided false answers and proceeded with the transaction. The ombudsman found that most of Mrs L's payments were not remarkable enough to require intervention, being modest amounts spread over 18 months to legitimate cryptocurrency providers, and that even when Revolut did intervene, Mrs L was determined to proceed despite the warnings. The complaint was not upheld as the ombudsman concluded that further intervention would not have prevented the loss given Mrs L's commitment to following the scammer's instructions.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Revolut has obligations to monitor accounts and intervene in suspicious transactions, there is a balance to strike between fraud prevention and minimising disruption to legitimate payments. Most of Mrs L's payments were not remarkable enough to trigger intervention - they were modest amounts (mostly under £500), spread over 18 months with gaps between them, and sent to legitimate cryptocurrency providers. When Revolut did intervene on the £8,000 payment, it provided clear warnings and asked direct questions about common scam indicators. Mrs L deliberately provided false answers to these questions and demonstrated a willingness to ignore warnings and follow the scammer's instructions. Even if Revolut had intervened earlier or probed further, Mrs L was so committed to the scam that she would likely have provided inaccurate information and proceeded anyway, as evidenced by her switching to alternative cryptocurrency providers when faced with difficulties.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website