Not upheld: account closure and fraud marker registration complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss E complained that Revolut unfairly blocked her account and registered a Cifas fraud marker after she received fraudulent funds into her account in September 2025. Miss E claimed she was unaware of the sender, wasn't expecting the funds, and was a victim of identity theft. However, the ombudsman found that Miss E's actions—transferring the funds to her own external account on the same day and then distributing them to her brother while retaining some—demonstrated she likely knew the funds were fraudulent and treated them as her own. The ombudsman concluded Revolut had sufficient evidence to meet the Cifas standard for registering a fraud marker and rejected the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Cifas standard requiring reasonable grounds to believe fraud occurred and clear evidence of deliberate complicity. The ombudsman found Miss E's behaviour inconsistent with her claim of innocence: she transferred unknown fraudulent funds to her own external account on the same day received, then distributed them to her brother while retaining some funds. This conduct, combined with her two-year account history suggesting she understood how her accounts functioned, indicated she likely knew the funds were fraudulent and treated them as her own. The ombudsman rejected Miss E's identity theft explanation as implausible, reasoning that a fraudster would not pay money into an unknown person's account without ability to recover it. The ombudsman concluded Miss E was complicit and Revolut properly registered the marker.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website