Not upheld: scam / fraud - failure to intervene in cryptocurrency payments complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr Q lost funds to an investment scam operated via company X, which instructed him to deposit money into his Revolut account and exchange it into USDT cryptocurrency. Mr Q made 17 cryptocurrency exchanges totalling significant amounts between February and April 2025. The complaint centres on whether Revolut should have intervened to prevent the scam. While the ombudsman found Revolut should have provided a tailored warning when Mr Q made a £4,999.99 exchange on 13 March 2025, it concluded this would not have prevented the scam because Mr Q provided dishonest answers to Revolut's intervention questions and would likely have continued to do so. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have intervened with a tailored warning when Mr Q made the £4,999.99 exchange on 13 March 2025, such intervention would not have prevented the scam. The ombudsman noted that Revolut did intervene during cryptocurrency withdrawals with automated questions and warning screens, and Mr Q did not provide truthful answers to these questions. The ombudsman concluded that even if Revolut had intervened earlier, Mr Q would likely have continued to provide dishonest answers, making it unlikely the scam would have been uncovered. Additionally, the ombudsman found that cryptocurrency withdrawal services fall outside FOS jurisdiction as cryptocurrency is not regulated as a financial activity in the UK.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website