Not upheld: fraud and scam protection / failure to intervene in payment / refusal to provide recall evidence complaint against Wise Payments Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A lost £17,225.49 (EUR 19,873.66) in a sophisticated car purchase scam where a fraudster impersonated Company A by opening a bank account in their name. Mr A made the payment through Wise after obtaining what appeared to be legitimate Company A invoices matching the bank account details. Mr A complained that Wise should have intervened to prevent the scam and later sought evidence of their recall action to pursue legal action against the overseas bank that opened the fraudulent account. The ombudsman found that while Wise should have implemented a proportionate human intervention for this high-value payment to a new overseas payee, such intervention would not have prevented the scam given Mr A's thorough research, legitimate documentation, and the sophisticated nature of the fraud. The ombudsman also found Wise's refusal to provide recall evidence was reasonable given legal and regulatory obligations, and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that Wise should have recognised a risk and implemented a proportionate human intervention for this high-value payment to a new overseas payee, as it was larger than previous payments and different in nature. However, the ombudsman concluded on the balance of probabilities that such an intervention would not have prevented the scam. This was because: (1) Mr A would have explained his thorough 20-year experience with car purchases; (2) he had legitimate Company A invoices matching the bank account details; (3) the scam was highly sophisticated with the fraudster successfully opening an account in Company A's name; (4) a Wise agent would not have been able to detect the fraud through reasonable checks; (5) Company A's public warning about not selling to private individuals was not necessarily available at the time and Mr A's answers to probing questions would not have prompted suspicion; and (6) fraud warnings alone would not have stopped Mr A from paying an account that appeared to belong to Company A. Regarding the recall evidence, Wise's refusal was reasonable given legal, regulatory, and data protection obligations.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website