Not upheld: fraud protection and scam prevention complaint against WorldRemit Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr U fell victim to a sophisticated employment scam and made multiple payments through WorldRemit to fraudsters' accounts. When he discovered the scam, he requested a refund from WorldRemit, which was refused. Mr U complained to the FOS arguing WorldRemit should have identified and prevented the fraudulent transactions. The ombudsman found the complaint not upheld, reasoning that WorldRemit lacked sufficient transactional history with Mr U to identify the payments as suspicious, and that international money transfers are the core function of WorldRemit's business. The ombudsman also noted that Mr U had been persuaded by fraudsters to provide misleading information to his bank, suggesting he would have done the same with WorldRemit had it intervened.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while firms should monitor transactions for fraud indicators and take proportionate protective steps, WorldRemit could not reasonably have identified a fraud risk based on the information available at the time. Unlike a current account provider, WorldRemit lacked an established relationship with Mr U and therefore had no baseline to assess whether payments were unusual. Additionally, international money transfers are the core function of WorldRemit's business, so sending funds overseas would not inherently trigger concern. The ombudsman also considered that even if WorldRemit had intervened, Mr U would likely have provided misleading responses (as he did with his bank) to ensure the payments were processed.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website