Not upheld: Cifas fraud marker registration - misuse of facility complaint against J. P. Morgan Europe Limited trading as Chase

Decision detail

Summary

Miss T complained that Chase unfairly registered a Cifas fraud marker against her after she received a £320 fraudulent payment from individual G in January 2025. Chase had been notified by another bank that the payment originated from fraud. When questioned, Miss T provided multiple conflicting explanations: initially claiming the money was for 'nothing in particular', then claiming it was repayment of a £200 debt from friend K, and providing undated screenshots as evidence. The ombudsman found that Miss T's testimony was not credible, her corroborative evidence was insufficient, and bank records showed she retained benefit from the fraudulent funds. The ombudsman upheld Chase's decision to register the marker, finding sufficient evidence of Miss T's deliberate complicity in receiving fraudulent funds.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Cifas standard requiring reasonable grounds to believe fraud occurred and clear, relevant, rigorous evidence of the consumer's deliberate complicity. The ombudsman found that Chase had established fraudulent funds entered Miss T's account. Critically, Miss T provided multiple conflicting explanations (initially 'nothing in particular', then a debt repayment), provided undated screenshots with no mention of the alleged debt, could not explain the 'tickets' reference, and bank records showed she transferred money to her own account rather than returning it to the alleged creditor. The ombudsman found Miss T's testimony changed significantly and lacked credible corroborative evidence, suggesting deliberate dishonesty rather than innocent receipt of fraudulent funds.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website