Not upheld: scam / fraud - failure to prevent payments to scammers complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Ms M lost money to two scams: an investment scam and a job-based scam, making approximately 25 cryptocurrency exchanges and 13 direct payments to cryptocurrency exchanges totalling over £36,000. She complained that Revolut should refund her losses. Revolut intervened on multiple occasions with automated questions and direct calls, and provided specific warnings about the investment scam pattern Ms M was experiencing. However, Ms M provided false answers to Revolut's questions and continued making payments after the warnings. The ombudsman found that while Revolut had a duty to protect against fraud, it did intervene appropriately, and Ms M's deliberate provision of false information prevented Revolut from identifying the scam. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Revolut had a duty to protect against fraud and undertake due diligence on large transactions, the ombudsman found that Revolut did intervene appropriately on multiple occasions with warnings and questions. The key issue was that Ms M deliberately provided false information to Revolut (claiming funds were going to her own account, denying pressure, stating she had done her own research) and continued making payments even after receiving a warning that specifically described the scam she was experiencing. The ombudsman concluded that even if Revolut should have intervened further, Ms M's willingness to provide false information made it very difficult to identify the scam, and there was insufficient evidence that Ms M would have provided more accurate information if pressed further. Therefore, Revolut did not miss an opportunity to prevent the scam.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website