Not upheld: fraud - investment scam; adequacy of scam intervention measures complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr F lost approximately £38,000 to a fake investment scheme between February and April 2025 after finding it online and joining a cryptocurrency trading chat group. He purchased cryptocurrency via Revolut and transferred it to scammers through his own exchange account. Revolut intervened multiple times as transaction amounts increased, implementing automated warning screens and requiring phone calls with agents that detailed common investment scam features. Mr F provided inaccurate answers during these interventions and continued sending money despite the warnings. The ombudsman found that while Mr F was victim of a sophisticated scam, Revolut's interventions were proportionate and appropriate, and the firm's actions were not the cause of his losses. The complaint was not upheld and no refund was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Mr F was clearly victim of a sophisticated investment scam, Revolut took proportionate and appropriate steps to protect him. The firm correctly identified fraud risk as transaction amounts and frequency increased in March, implemented comprehensive warning screens detailing common investment scam features that applied to Mr F's situation, and required human intervention calls where agents provided relevant warnings. Although Mr F provided inaccurate answers during interventions and the 3 April call could have been more robust, given his misleading responses to earlier interventions and continued sending despite warnings, a more robust intervention would likely not have stopped him. The scam was sophisticated and carefully designed to deceive. Revolut's actions were not the cause of the losses.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website