Not upheld: scam/fraud - failure to prevent financial harm complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G fell victim to a job scam where Company A required him to make payments to access online tasks and receive commissions. Between January and February 2025, Mr G made numerous payments from his Revolut account before discovering he could not withdraw funds and realizing it was a scam. Revolut declined to reimburse him, and Mr G complained to the FOS. The ombudsman found that Mr G had misrepresented the purpose of his payments to Revolut as personal cryptocurrency investments rather than disclosing the scam, and presented himself as knowledgeable and independent. Therefore, Revolut could not have identified the fraud or prevented the loss, and the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Revolut has a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care and identify vulnerable consumers at risk of scams, Mr G deliberately misrepresented the purpose of his payments to both Revolut and Bank A. Mr G presented himself as knowledgeable about cryptocurrency investments and stated he was acting independently, which prevented Revolut from identifying the true nature of the scam. The ombudsman concluded that even if Revolut had intervened with a conversation, Mr G would not have been honest about the scam, so Revolut would not have identified the fraud risk. Therefore, Revolut could not have prevented the loss.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website