Not upheld: Cifas marker application for misuse of facility complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that Revolut improperly applied a Cifas marker for 'misuse of facility' after his account received fraudulent funds. Mr S claimed he was an unwitting 'money-mule' who believed his friend was repaying a debt with legitimate funds. However, Mr S admitted providing dishonest answers when Revolut questioned him about the transactions and could not corroborate his account with evidence. The ombudsman found Mr S's testimony implausible given his admission of dishonesty and eight-month delay in disclosing the friend's involvement. Applying the Cifas standard requiring clear evidence that the consumer knew the funds were or might be illegitimate, the ombudsman concluded Revolut met the threshold and declined to uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Cifas evidential standard requiring 'clear, relevant and rigorous' evidence and determined that the consumer must have known the funds were or might be from an illegitimate source. The ombudsman found Mr S's testimony implausible because: (1) he admitted being dishonest to Revolut, which contradicts his claim of innocent misunderstanding; (2) it is not difficult to comprehend that lying to a financial firm is wrong; (3) he delayed disclosing the friend's involvement by eight months; and (4) he provided no corroborating evidence despite claiming the chats were deleted. These factors led the ombudsman to conclude Mr S likely knew the funds were or might be illegitimate.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website