Not upheld: fraud marker loading / account closure complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr U complained that Monzo unfairly loaded a negative fraud marker against him after he received a £50 fraudulent payment and transferred it to another account. Mr U initially claimed the funds were for 'online rent' but later explained he was recruited via social media to earn commission by converting funds to cryptocurrency, though he admitted uncertainty about its legality. The ombudsman found that while Monzo had clear evidence of financial crime, they also needed to prove Mr U's complicity. The ombudsman upheld Monzo's decision, finding Mr U was complicit based on his inconsistent explanations, admission of uncertainty about legality, and insufficient evidence supporting his claim of being manipulated by scammers.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the fraud notification proved a financial crime occurred, Monzo also needed to demonstrate Mr U was complicit in receiving the fraudulent funds. The ombudsman concluded Mr U was complicit based on: (1) his inconsistent explanations and admission of uncertainty about legality, which suggested he knew the activity was questionable; (2) the undated and incomplete messages that couldn't be reliably tied to the fraudulent payment; and (3) the lack of evidence showing fraudulent funds flowing through Mr U's cryptocurrency account to third parties.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website