Not upheld: Cifas marker registration and account closure for suspected account misuse complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H complained that Revolut unfairly recorded a Cifas misuse of facility marker against him after his account received fraudulent payments that were quickly withdrawn. Mr H claimed he never authorized the transactions and that someone else accessed his account without his knowledge. Revolut had filed the marker based on evidence that fraudulent funds entered and passed through the account via cryptocurrency, third-party payments, and cash withdrawals. The ombudsman upheld Revolut's decision, finding strong evidence of Mr H's deliberate complicity, particularly because he received the physical card and PIN, received notifications of the activity without reporting it, and the funds could only have been withdrawn via cash machines with the card. The ombudsman declined to require removal of the marker.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied Cifas guidance requiring strong evidence of deliberate complicity rather than unwitting involvement. The ombudsman found it significant that Mr H opened the account but allegedly never used it, yet received notifications of activity without immediately reporting it to Revolut. The fact that cash withdrawals occurred (requiring the physical card) and funds were rapidly moved through cryptocurrency and other payment methods suggested Mr H's involvement. The ombudsman was not persuaded by Mr H's explanation that another device accessed the account without his knowledge, particularly given he received the card and PIN and did not report the activity promptly.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website