Not upheld: scam loss reimbursement and fraud prevention complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that Revolut failed to prevent him losing approximately £19,000 to a cryptocurrency investment scam. Revolut had intervened in some transactions and provided warnings, but Mr H's representatives argued the interventions should have occurred earlier and been more extensive. The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have been alert to fraud, its actual interventions were proportionate. Critically, the ombudsman determined that Mr H was not truthful with Revolut, was being coached by the scammer on what to say, and deliberately circumvented Revolut's controls by redirecting funds through another account after an intervention. The complaint was not upheld as there was no evidence that additional or earlier intervention would have prevented the loss.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have been alert to fraud and made additional checks, the interventions it did make were proportionate. The key finding was that Mr H was not truthful with Revolut and was being actively coached by the scammer on what to say. Even if Revolut had intervened earlier or more extensively, there is no evidence Mr H would have acted differently given the coaching and his own misrepresentations. Furthermore, once funds were returned to the originating account following Revolut's intervention, Mr H deliberately redirected them to his cryptocurrency account, demonstrating his continued intent to proceed with the scam. The ombudsman concluded that causation cannot be established between any potential additional action by Revolut and prevention of the loss.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website