Not upheld: scam / fraud loss recovery; failure to prevent financial harm from fraud complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Ms W complained that Revolut failed to refund money she lost to a cryptocurrency investment scam. She had made multiple exchanges from fiat currency to cryptocurrency and sent the funds to scammers, believing it was a legitimate investment opportunity. Revolut had intervened on some transactions with warnings and questions, but Ms W provided inaccurate answers to get transactions processed. The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have provided a tailored warning before the second exchange on 7 April 2025, it could not be held liable because Ms W's demonstrated willingness to provide false information meant that proportionate intervention would not have prevented the loss. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have provided a tailored written warning regarding crypto investment scams prior to the second exchange on 7 April 2025, the critical issue was causation. The ombudsman determined that even if Revolut had intervened proportionately, Ms W would likely have answered questions similarly to how she did during the cryptocurrency withdrawals, providing inaccurate information to get transactions processed. The ombudsman noted that Ms W's willingness to provide false answers (e.g., claiming the investment was from someone she knew, that she had researched it, that she wasn't being pressured) demonstrated she trusted the scammers and would have circumvented any warnings. Therefore, the ombudsman could not fairly hold Revolut liable because the failure to intervene would not have prevented the loss. Additionally, the ombudsman found no evidence from Ms W's interactions with Revolut that she was vulnerable or under pressure at the time of the payments.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website