Not upheld: investment scam - refund liability and failure to intervene complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R lost over £16,000 to a cryptocurrency investment scam after being introduced via a fraudulent online advertisement. He opened a Monzo account specifically to continue making payments after another bank blocked cryptocurrency transactions. While the ombudsman acknowledged that Monzo should have intervened based on suspicious transaction patterns and cryptocurrency payees, it found that Mr R was heavily under the scammer's influence and had demonstrated willingness to mislead other banks and use backup accounts to continue payments. The ombudsman concluded that proportionate interventions by Monzo would likely not have prevented the scam, and therefore did not uphold the complaint for a refund.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While the ombudsman agreed that Monzo should have intervened given the transaction values, spending patterns, and cryptocurrency risk, a finding of failure to intervene is insufficient to uphold the complaint. The ombudsman must be satisfied that proportionate interventions would likely have prevented the scam. The evidence showed Mr R was heavily under the scammer's influence, had been in contact since November 2024, was prepared to follow all instructions including taking loans and opening new accounts, had already set up backup accounts, and gave misleading responses to other banks' interventions. Therefore, the ombudsman was not persuaded that Monzo's intervention would have been effective in preventing the losses.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website