Not upheld: scam / fraud loss - cryptocurrency exchanges complaint against Revolut Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6265458 of 2026-05-13T00:00:00+00:00. scam / fraud loss - cryptocurrency exchanges complaint against Revolut Ltd. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6265458 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-13T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Revolut Ltd |
| Product | electronic money / payment services |
| Claim type | scam / fraud loss - cryptocurrency exchanges |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. Complaint not upheld. (Note: Separate faster payment transactions were refunded under FPS Reimbursement Rules with £26.30 additional payment made.) |
Summary
Mr B fell victim to a job scam where he was instructed to make advance payments to participate in a commission-based scheme. He made two cryptocurrency exchanges via Revolut totalling £2,780 on 11 June 2025, which were sent to the scammers. After realising the scam, Mr B complained to Revolut for not refunding his losses. The ombudsman found the cryptocurrency exchanges were not sufficiently unusual to warrant intervention by Revolut, as buying cryptocurrency is legitimate and the amounts, while larger than typical, were not extraordinary. The complaint was not upheld, though Revolut had separately refunded losses from faster payments under the FPS Reimbursement Rules.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
While Revolut should have systems to detect fraud and scams, the two cryptocurrency exchanges were not sufficiently unusual or suspicious to warrant intervention. Buying cryptocurrency is legitimate, and larger transactions are not uncommon. Even if Revolut had intervened similarly to how it did on a later withdrawal, Mr B was being guided by scammers to provide inaccurate payment purposes, which would have prevented relevant warnings from being effective. Additionally, cryptocurrency losses are unregulated and not reversible.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Revolut Ltd, all decisions | 3,821 | 18% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website