Not upheld: scam protection and fraud prevention complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss C lost money trading binary options with Company P through her Revolut account over a ten-month period, making 127 payments totalling a significant sum. After discovering an FCA warning about Company P and experiencing withdrawal blocks, she believed she was a victim of a scam and requested Revolut refund her losses and provide chargeback protection. Revolut rejected the complaint citing no chargeback rights for investment payments. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence that Company P was operating a fraudulent scam, distinguishing between high-risk investment losses and fraud, and determined Revolut had no obligation to intervene in the payments or recover funds.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while binary options trading is high-risk and Company P's practices were arguably unethical, there was insufficient evidence meeting the high legal threshold for fraud. The ombudsman distinguished between poor conduct and fraud, noting that unregulated traders' use of payment disguise tactics and misleading sales methods do not necessarily constitute fraud. Even if fraud were established, Revolut would not have been expected to intervene given the relatively low individual payment amounts, the established payee status, and lack of awareness of Company P's nature.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website