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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained that Revolut improperly loaded a Cifas marker against his account in March 2025 after he received payments he claimed were from his friend's cryptocurrency sales. When Revolut requested proof of entitlement, Mr C provided limited evidence and later submitted falsified video evidence, then admitted his friend had manipulated him into allowing unauthorized access to his account. Mr C subsequently claimed he was an unwitting money mule and cited mental health vulnerabilities and medication side effects affecting his judgment. The ombudsman found that fraudulent funds did enter Mr C's account and that Revolut had strong evidence of Mr C's deliberate dishonesty, rejecting his claim of being unwitting based on his inconsistent accounts and deliberate falsification of evidence. The complaint was not upheld and the Cifas marker was found to be fairly registered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Cifas standard requiring reasonable grounds to believe fraud or financial crime occurred, with clear, relevant, and rigorous evidence. The ombudsman found that fraudulent funds did enter Mr C's account and that Revolut had strong evidence Mr C was deliberately dishonest in receiving the funds. The ombudsman rejected Mr C's claim of being an unwitting money mule, noting his inconsistent accounts, his deliberate submission of falsified evidence, and lack of compelling evidence that his friend orchestrated everything without Mr C's knowledge. The ombudsman acknowledged Mr C's mental health concerns but found insufficient evidence to support his assertion that he was unaware of the fraudulent activity.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website