Not upheld: scam / investment fraud - refund claim complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H lost approximately £135,000 in an investment scam conducted through his Revolut account between May and June 2025. He made multiple transactions including cryptocurrency exchanges, and Revolut intervened several times with warnings and questions, but did not intervene on all transactions. Mr H complained that Revolut should have refunded his losses. The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have intervened on additional transactions, Mr H was not forthcoming during these interventions, consistently failing to disclose third-party involvement and misleading Revolut about the nature of the transactions. Evidence showed Mr H also misled other banks about his transactions. The ombudsman concluded that even with further intervention, Mr H would have continued to mislead Revolut, meaning the scam would not have been uncovered regardless, and therefore Revolut could not fairly be held liable for the losses.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While the ombudsman found that Revolut should have intervened on additional transactions due to their high values and cryptocurrency nature, the key issue was causation. The ombudsman concluded that even if Revolut had intervened further, Mr H would have continued to mislead Revolut (as evidenced by his misleading responses to existing interventions and his dishonesty with other banks). Therefore, any additional intervention would not have uncovered the scam or prevented the loss. The ombudsman noted that a firm's intervention relies on customers being accurate and truthful, and where this doesn't occur, it hinders the firm's ability to uncover fraud.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website