Not upheld: Cifas fraud marker registration and account closure complaint against Revolut Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6294994 of 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00. Cifas fraud marker registration and account closure complaint against Revolut Ltd. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6294994 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Revolut Ltd |
| Product | current account |
| Claim type | Cifas fraud marker registration and account closure |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman declined to require removal of the Cifas marker or any other compensation. |
Summary
Miss B complained that Revolut unfairly registered her details with Cifas and closed her account after her account received a fraudulent £300 payment. Miss B claimed she had agreed to receive the payment on behalf of a friend from her home country but initially did not respond to Revolut's inquiries and stated she had no evidence of contact with her friend. After the ombudsman's investigator issued findings, Miss B produced screenshots from a different messaging platform than she had initially claimed, but these did not explain the circumstances of the payment arrangement. The ombudsman found Miss B's inconsistent explanations and reluctance to respond to Revolut's questions suggested she knew the payment was or might be fraudulent, and therefore Revolut acted fairly in registering the Cifas marker and closing her account. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Revolut met the requirements for registering a 'misuse of facility' marker, which requires reasonable grounds to believe fraud or financial crime occurred and clear, relevant, rigorous evidence. The ombudsman found Miss B's account was inconsistent and evasive: she initially did not respond to Revolut's inquiries, later claimed she had no evidence of contact with her friend, and then produced screenshots from a different messaging platform than she had initially stated. The ombudsman noted that if Miss B genuinely believed she had done nothing wrong, she would have responded to Revolut's questions and provided evidence at that time. The ombudsman concluded it was more likely than not that Miss B knew the payments were or might be fraudulent, evidenced by her reluctance to respond to Revolut's questions. Therefore, Revolut acted fairly in registering the marker and was entitled to close the account under its terms and conditions.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Revolut Ltd, all decisions | 3,821 | 18% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website