Not upheld: Cifas marker registration and account closure following suspected fraud involvement complaint against HSBC UK Bank Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr I complained that HSBC improperly registered a Cifas marker against him and closed his account after he received fraudulent funds that he claimed resulted from an employment scam. Mr I had been contacted about a job opportunity via messaging app, told he would receive and forward funds as a financial assistant, and provided his HSBC account details after two other banks had already blocked similar payments and instructed him to lie about them. HSBC referred him to Cifas for misuse of facility. The ombudsman upheld HSBC's actions, finding sufficient evidence that the funds were fraudulent and that Mr I knew or ought to have known they were illegitimate, particularly given the prior account blocks and instruction to deceive his banks. The account closure was also found to comply with the account terms and conditions.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Cifas requirement for 'clear, relevant and rigorous' evidence to support fraud submissions. On the first evidential threshold, the ombudsman found sufficient evidence that the funds were fraudulent based on the sending banks' reports and Mr I's admission he had no real entitlement to them. On the second threshold, the ombudsman concluded that Mr I knew or ought reasonably to have known the funds were or might be illegitimate because: (1) he had already experienced account blocks at two other institutions for similar payments; (2) he was instructed by the scammer to lie to his banks; (3) the job offer itself had suspicious elements (no contract, no company information, unsolicited messaging); and (4) his non-response to HSBC's inquiries suggested he had concerns. The ombudsman distinguished between initial naivety and the point at which Mr I should have known better—which was when he provided his HSBC details after the incidents with other banks.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website