Not upheld: CIFAS fraud marker lodgement; suspected involvement in fraud complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D complained that Revolut improperly lodged a fraud-related CIFAS marker against him after his account received £1,500 from a victim of an investment scam. Mr D initially claimed the money was a personal loan from a family friend, later changing his story to claim it was payment for currency exchange services. The ombudsman found that Revolut had sufficient evidence of fraud: a genuine fraud report from another bank, clear evidence of the fraudulent funds passing through Mr D's account, and Mr D's contradictory explanations with no supporting documentation. The ombudsman concluded Mr D knew the funds were fraudulent and that Revolut properly met the regulatory requirements for lodging a CIFAS marker. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the CIFAS requirements that there must be reasonable grounds to believe fraud was committed and the evidence must be clear, relevant and rigorous. The ombudsman found that Revolut had sufficient evidence: a genuine fraud report from another bank, clear evidence that fraudulent funds were received by Mr D, and Mr D's contradictory explanations with no supporting documentation. The ombudsman concluded that Mr D's changing story and lack of any evidence of currency exchange activity demonstrated he knew the funds were fraudulent. The ombudsman went further than Revolut's assessment, concluding Mr D knew the money was fraudulent rather than merely being complicit in an unlicensed money exchange.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website