Not upheld: scam prevention and fraud detection - failure to prevent investment scam complaint against Santander UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H was victim of a romance scam where he was persuaded to invest in a fake trading website. He made approximately 7 payments from his Santander account totalling an unspecified amount, which were routed through a crypto exchange. Santander intervened on multiple occasions but Mr H provided misleading answers about the purpose of payments. The ombudsman found that Santander could not have uncovered or prevented the scam through proportionate intervention, as Mr H deliberately misled the bank and maintained trust in the scammer despite warnings. The complaint was not upheld and no refund was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Santander has a duty to monitor accounts and intervene to prevent fraud, it is only required to take proportionate steps. Santander did intervene on multiple occasions, but Mr H provided misleading answers designed to allow the payments to proceed. The scam was not a typical crypto scam and relied on Mr H's trust in the scammer developed over two months. Even if Santander had provided a general crypto warning or identified the crypto exchange link, this would not have stopped the scam given Mr H's explicit trust in the scammer and his continued payments even after being warned by a relation. The funds could not be recovered through the APP reimbursement scheme (as they went to accounts in Mr H's own name) or chargeback (as the payments were legitimate transfers between accounts).

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website