Not upheld: unfair fraud marker registration and account closure complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Monzo Bank Limited unfairly closed his account and registered a Cifas fraud marker against him. Fraudulent funds were received into his account in April 2025 and immediately transferred out. When asked to explain the source of funds, Mr A provided explanations that Monzo rejected. Mr A later claimed that someone named G had unauthorized access to his phone and accounts and was responsible for the transactions and responses to Monzo. The ombudsman found it implausible that Mr A would voluntarily give another person full access to his banking credentials for seven months without knowing what was happening or reporting the security breach, and concluded Mr A was wittingly complicit in the fraud. The complaint was not upheld and the marker was not removed.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Cifas standard requiring reasonable grounds to believe fraud occurred and clear, relevant, rigorous evidence of deliberate complicity. The ombudsman found it implausible that Mr A gave another person full access to his phone and banking credentials for seven months without knowing what was happening, without questioning the payments, or without reporting the security compromise. The ombudsman concluded that by willingly giving G access to his accounts, Mr A wittingly contributed to the fraud and was likely complicit, even if he did not directly carry out the transactions himself.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website