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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Revolut unfairly registered a Cifas 'misuse of facility' marker against him after his account received payments from two individuals (H and V) who subsequently reported fraud to their banks, claiming they paid for items and received nothing. Mr A initially told Revolut the payments were gifts, later claiming they were payment for items he had sold, but could not provide evidence of goods delivered. The ombudsman found the fraud reports from H and V credible as two unconnected individuals made similar claims, and Mr A's inconsistent explanations and lack of evidence undermined his credibility. The ombudsman concluded Revolut had sufficient grounds to register the marker and declined to order its removal.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the legal standard for Cifas markers, requiring reasonable grounds to believe fraud was committed and strong evidence of complicity. The ombudsman found that the fraud reports from H and V were credible as two unconnected individuals made similar claims. Mr A's inability to provide evidence of goods delivered, combined with his inconsistent explanations (initially gifts, later sales) and the fact he transferred funds to a third party, demonstrated likely complicity rather than unwitting receipt of fraudulent funds. The ombudsman was not persuaded by Mr A's explanation that he was a legitimate reseller, particularly given his failure to retain any evidence of sales despite claiming to regularly sell goods.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website