Not upheld: account closure and fraud marker registration complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Ms N complained that Revolut unfairly recorded a fraud marker against her on the Cifas database and closed her account after she received and transferred fraudulent funds. Ms N claimed she opened the account for a friend to receive wages because they had account problems, and provided screenshots to support this. Revolut's investigation and the ombudsman's review found her explanation unconvincing due to multiple red flags including the existence of her own account, her failure to respond to Revolut's inquiry, inconsistent payment references, and the apparent functionality of the friend's account. The ombudsman upheld Revolut's decision, finding strong evidence of deliberate complicity rather than unwitting participation, and declined to require removal of the marker or account reinstatement.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied Cifas guidance requiring strong evidence of deliberate dishonesty and complicity, not mere unwitting participation. The ombudsman found Ms N's explanation unconvincing because: (1) there was no satisfactory reason to open a separate account when she already had one; (2) she failed to respond to Revolut's inquiry; (3) the payment references were inconsistent with legitimate wage payments; and (4) if the friend's account was working (as evidenced by her ability to send funds to it), there would have been no need for the arrangement. The ombudsman concluded the activity raised significant red flags and Revolut had strong evidence of deliberate complicity.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website