Upheld: authorised push payment scam - investment fraud / irresponsible failure to prevent scam complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6212636 of 2026-04-02T00:00:00+00:00. authorised push payment scam - investment fraud / irresponsible failure to prevent scam complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6212636 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-02T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | HSBC UK Bank Plc |
| Product | investment scam / authorised push payment |
| Claim type | authorised push payment scam - investment fraud / irresponsible failure to prevent scam |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | HSBC UK Bank Plc must reimburse X £20,000 in full and apply 8% simple interest from 13 January 2026 to the date of settlement. HSBC is entitled to take an assignment of rights to all future distributions to X under any liquidation process in respect of this investment to avoid double recovery, provided it first provides a draft assignment to X for her consideration and agreement. |
Summary
X invested £20,000 with V, an investment company introduced by her partner, between February and March 2023. In May and June 2023, V revealed it was operating without FCA authorisation and had been engaging in regulated activities illegally. X reported the matter as a scam to HSBC in November 2025, but HSBC refused to respond, citing ongoing FCA and police investigations. The ombudsman upheld X's complaint, finding that V was operating a sophisticated investment scam that diverted funds to cryptocurrency exchanges and investor returns rather than Forex trading as promised. The ombudsman rejected HSBC's argument to delay the decision and determined that X had a reasonable basis for believing V was legitimate. HSBC was ordered to reimburse X £20,000 plus 8% simple interest under the CRM Code.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman determined that it was appropriate to decide the complaint based on available evidence without waiting for external investigations to conclude, as the CRM Code does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt and fairness to the parties demands timely resolution. The evidence clearly demonstrated that V did not intend to use X's funds for the legitimate investment purpose she believed, as funds were diverted to cryptocurrency exchanges and investor returns rather than Forex trading. V made false regulatory claims and lied when applying for accounts. This constituted an APP scam under the CRM Code definition. X had a reasonable basis for believing V was legitimate given the sophisticated nature of the scam, professional presentation, Companies House registration, and personal connection through her partner. HSBC failed to provide an effective warning that would have prevented the scam, and no exceptions to reimbursement under the CRM Code applied.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| HSBC UK Bank Plc, all decisions | 7,504 | 23% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website