Not upheld: Cifas fraud marker registration - misuse of facility complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss M complained that Revolut Ltd improperly registered a Cifas fraud prevention marker against her account for 'misuse of facility'. Revolut had closed her account after receiving reports that funds entering it were fraudulent, and Miss M claimed she was an unwitting victim of a job scam who unknowingly became a money mule. The ombudsman examined whether Miss M was aware the funds were illegitimate and found her account lacked detail and corroboration despite questioning. Multiple red flags were evident: unexplained role changes, requests to send funds to cryptocurrency, and use of her personal account instead of the employer's. Critically, after becoming suspicious and blocking the recruiter, Miss M later unblocked contact and sent fraudulent funds to cryptocurrency on instruction, citing threats. The ombudsman concluded Miss M likely knew at that point the funds were illegitimate, and her delay in contacting Revolut until disputes were reported contradicted her claim of being an unwitting victim. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Miss M claimed to be an unwitting victim of a job scam, her account lacked detail and corroboration despite questioning. Multiple red flags were present from the outset: the unexplained role change, requests to send funds to cryptocurrency, and the need to use her personal account rather than the employer's own accounts. Critically, after becoming suspicious and blocking the recruiter, Miss M later unblocked contact and sent fraudulent funds to cryptocurrency on the recruiter's instruction, citing threats as her reason. The ombudsman concluded that at this point, Miss M most likely knew she was moving funds from an illegitimate source. Additionally, her delay in contacting Revolut until disputes were reported (despite having concerns weeks earlier) was inconsistent with being a truly unwitting victim.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website