Not upheld: scam - recovery scam / investment fraud - refund claim complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr F fell victim to a recovery scam in 2025 and made payments totalling £14,300 from his Revolut account to a crypto provider, with an attempted third payment of £15,300 which Revolut declined. Revolut carried out fraud prevention checks before processing the larger payments, providing warnings about scams and asking Mr F to be honest about the transaction purposes. However, Mr F provided inaccurate information, denying unsolicited contact and third-party involvement despite being victim of a recovery scam, and withheld the true circumstances of the payments. When Revolut closed his account, they returned the remaining balance to a bank account in Mr F's name, which Mr F later claimed was also lost to the scam. The ombudsman found Revolut's interventions were proportionate and that Mr F's dishonesty prevented Revolut from discovering the scam, making Revolut not responsible for the losses. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have intervened before processing the second and third payments due to their high values and crypto fraud risk, Revolut's interventions were proportionate. Revolut provided clear warnings about scams, specifically mentioning screen-sharing software, unsolicited contact, and the importance of honest answers. However, Mr F provided inaccurate information and withheld the true circumstances of the payments. The ombudsman found that Mr F likely received more coaching from the scammer than claimed, as he consistently maintained the payments were for investment purposes and denied third-party involvement despite being victim of a recovery scam. Crucially, the ombudsman applied a causation test: even if Revolut had failed to intervene, Mr F's dishonesty prevented Revolut from uncovering the scam. Additionally, Revolut did decline the £15,300 payment, preventing that loss. The ombudsman also found Mr F had not sufficiently demonstrated that the returned funds were lost to the scam, as the bank account was active before the disputed payments and Mr F had provided the bank statement to Revolut.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website