Not upheld: Failure to prevent investment scam fraud complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Ms G fell victim to an investment scam after being contacted by a fraudster posing as an investment manager. She made 17 cryptocurrency transactions totalling £31,105.33 through her Revolut account between 7-21 February 2025, funded initially by savings and then by borrowing from friends and family. Although the ombudsman found Revolut should have intervened at the point of the larger cryptocurrency exchanges (£6,050 on 17 February and £6,300 on 19 February), it concluded that intervention would not have prevented the loss. Ms G had been coached by the scammer to hide the transaction purpose, subsequently provided false information to Revolut despite receiving clear warnings about cryptocurrency scams, refused to share evidence when requested, and demonstrated unwavering commitment to the scam until her funds were exhausted. The ombudsman determined Ms G was acting out of fear and desperation rather than reasonableness and would likely have found alternative payment methods even if Revolut had blocked her account.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Although Revolut should have intervened at the point Ms G exchanged £6,050 into cryptocurrency on 17 February 2025 and again at £6,300 on 19 February 2025, the ombudsman concluded that no intervention would have prevented the loss. Ms G demonstrated she was deeply under the scammer's spell, having been coached to withhold information from Revolut and subsequently providing false information despite Revolut's clear warnings about cryptocurrency scams. Ms G's actions—refusing to share evidence when requested, providing false screenshots to prove wallet access, cancelling payments only to reinitiate them, and continuing to send funds until depleted—showed she was acting out of fear and desperation rather than reasonableness. The ombudsman found Ms G would likely have found alternative means to send funds even if Revolut had blocked her account, as her primary motivation was attempting to recover her initial investment.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website