Not upheld: scam / investment fraud - refusal to refund complaint against Revolut Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A lost £16,500 in an investment scam operated by company X in June 2024, receiving four payments before the scheme collapsed. He complained to Revolut for refusing to refund his loss. The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have intervened with a warning due to the unusually high transaction value, such intervention would unlikely have prevented the scam given Mr A's prior research. Additionally, Revolut was not a CRM Code signatory at the time, so no reimbursement obligation existed. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Mr A authorised the payment and bears initial responsibility, PSPs have duties to protect against fraud and conduct due diligence on large transactions. The payment value was anomalously high compared to Mr A's usual transactions, warranting intervention. However, a proportionate intervention would have been an automated warning based on stated purpose. Given Mr A had conducted significant research and the scam's complexity, such a warning would unlikely have prevented the loss. Therefore, Revolut missed no opportunity to prevent the scam.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website