Not upheld: fraud prevention and scam - failure to prevent loss through inadequate intervention complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Ms S was victim of a job opportunity scam where she was instructed to deposit funds into a cryptocurrency exchange to unlock tasks and earn commission. She made multiple payments totalling over £10,000 from her Revolut account to the cryptocurrency provider between January and 6 January 2026. Revolut conducted a 20-minute phone call before allowing the largest payment and accepted Ms S's explanation that she was learning to invest from a family member. Although the ombudsman found Revolut should have intervened again when payments escalated to £7,750 over two days, the ombudsman concluded that the customer's plausible cover story would likely have satisfied Revolut in a second call, and therefore Revolut could not reasonably have prevented the loss. The complaint was not upheld and no refund was directed.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the legal starting position that Electronic Money Institutions must process authorised payments, but balanced this against fraud prevention responsibilities. While Revolut's initial intervention was proportionate and the customer's explanation was plausible, the ombudsman found that Revolut should have intervened again when payments escalated to £7,750 over two days. However, the ombudsman concluded that even a second intervention would likely not have uncovered the scam because the customer's cover story remained plausible and there was no evidence of coaching or inconsistencies. Without access to communications between Ms S and the scammers, the ombudsman could not definitively prove that a second call would have prevented the loss. The ombudsman also found no signs of vulnerability that Revolut should have detected.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website