Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Ms C complained that Revolut failed to refund losses from a job scam where she sent multiple payments believing she was investing in a genuine remote job opportunity. She exchanged fiat currency to cryptocurrency before sending funds externally. Revolut intervened multiple times on 26-27 September 2025 with automated warnings and questions, and even called Ms C to warn her of potential scam, but Ms C provided inaccurate information (claiming crypto investment rather than job opportunity) and insisted on proceeding. The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have provided a tailored warning at the final £7,096.10 exchange, it could not fairly be held liable because: (1) Ms C's false information prevented Revolut from identifying the actual scam; (2) she explicitly wanted payments released despite warnings; and (3) proportionate intervention would not have prevented the loss. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have provided a tailored written warning at the final £7,096.10 exchange (which was unusual and carried heightened fraud risk), the key issue was causation. The ombudsman noted that Revolut had already intervened multiple times with warnings and questions, and Ms C had provided inaccurate information throughout - claiming to be investing in crypto when she actually believed she was participating in a remote job opportunity. The ombudsman concluded that even if Revolut had intervened further at the final exchange, it would not have prevented the loss because: (1) Ms C was providing false information that prevented Revolut from identifying the actual scam; (2) Ms C explicitly stated she wanted the payment released despite Revolut's warnings; and (3) the circumstances did not warrant human intervention given the values involved. Therefore, Revolut could not fairly be held liable for losses it could not have prevented given the information available to it.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website