Not upheld: fraud and scam losses - job scam via cryptocurrency complaint against Santander UK Plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6259966 of 2026-04-17T00:00:00+00:00. fraud and scam losses - job scam via cryptocurrency complaint against Santander UK Plc. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6259966 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-17T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Santander UK Plc |
| Product | current account / payment services |
| Claim type | fraud and scam losses - job scam via cryptocurrency |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. Complaint not upheld. No refund ordered. |
Summary
Miss B lost £740 to a job scam after being contacted by scammers posing as Company C. She was told to pay money to complete remote work tasks with promises of greater returns. She made three card payments to Firm M (a crypto exchange) which transferred the funds to scammers in cryptocurrency. After realising it was a scam, she claimed a refund from Santander, which was rejected. The ombudsman found the complaint not upheld because cryptocurrency transactions are legal and common, the payment amounts were not unusual compared to Miss B's previous transaction history, and the pattern did not show concerning fraud indicators. The APP Scam Reimbursement Rules do not apply as payments were by card rather than APP.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Although cryptocurrency transactions carry elevated risk, they are legal and common. Firm M is a legitimate crypto exchange. The payment amounts were not unusual given Miss B's previous transaction history (up to £400). The pattern of payments did not show concerning indicators such as high velocity same-day payments increasing in size. Banks must balance fraud prevention against inconveniencing legitimate transactions. Santander's systems and monitoring were not required to identify this particular scam risk as a matter of fair and reasonable practice.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Santander UK Plc, all decisions | 14,445 | 22% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website