Not upheld: Cifas marker registration for misuse of facility complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained about a Cifas marker registered by Revolut Ltd after he received fraudulent funds totalling £1,161.47 on 18 December 2025 and transferred them out of his account. When questioned by Revolut and the FOS, Mr S provided three different explanations for the transfers, each containing material inconsistencies and unsupported claims. The ombudsman found that Mr S's inability to provide consistent testimony, combined with missing evidence and unexplained details (such as not knowing E's full name despite 18 months of acquaintance and E's contact being saved as 'M'), suggested he was aware something untoward was occurring. The ombudsman concluded that Revolut had reasonable grounds to believe financial crime had been committed and therefore acted fairly in registering the Cifas marker and closing the account.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr S provided three materially different accounts of the same events, each with inconsistencies and unsupported claims. Key concerns included: Mr S not knowing E's full name despite 18 months of acquaintance; E's contact being saved as 'M' without explanation; the screenshot suggesting funds were for E's brother contradicting the claim they went to K; missing evidence of the crucial message from E about the funds being sent in error; and Mr S's inability to provide corroborating messages about why the funds were sent to him. The ombudsman concluded that the inconsistencies and lack of evidence suggested Mr S was aware something untoward was happening, and that Revolut had reasonable grounds to believe financial crime had occurred. The ombudsman also noted that even accepting Mr S's third version, allowing a third party to use his account would justify the marker.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website