Not upheld: failure to prevent investment scam / inadequate fraud prevention measures complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Ms D lost over £25,000 to an investment scam conducted via social media between November and December 2024, making approximately 32 payments to crypto exchanges that were subsequently transferred to the scammer. She complained that Revolut failed to prevent the scam despite intervening multiple times with warnings and questions. The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have intervened earlier and more frequently, Ms D's misleading responses to interventions (claiming she was holding crypto in her own wallet rather than sending it to third parties) meant that additional interventions would not have prevented the scam. The complaint was not upheld as chargebacks would not have succeeded and the Contingent Reimbursement Model does not cover such transfers.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Revolut should have intervened earlier and more frequently, particularly regarding the third payment on 21 November 2024, the ombudsman found that Ms D's responses to warnings and interventions demonstrated she was either coached or voluntarily providing misleading information. She consistently stated she was holding crypto in her own wallet when she was actually sending funds to the scammer. The ombudsman concluded on balance that earlier or additional human interventions would not have prevented the scam given Ms D's pattern of misleading responses. Additionally, chargebacks would not have been successful as Ms D received the cryptocurrency she paid for; the loss occurred only when she transferred it to the scammer. The Contingent Reimbursement Model does not cover transfers to accounts in the customer's own name.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website