Not upheld: investment scam - failure to prevent / inadequate fraud prevention interventions complaint against Wise Payments Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K, a senior citizen, lost £174,972 to an investment scam after opening a Wise account and making seven international payments between September 12-26, 2025. He had been deceived by a fake investment platform endorsed by celebrities and was under the control of scammers who had access to his device. Mr K complained to Wise seeking a refund, arguing they should have detected the scam and implemented effective interventions. While the ombudsman found that Wise should have implemented proportionate risk mitigation interventions given clear fraud indicators (elderly customer, large amounts, extraordinary escalation in account activity), the complaint was not upheld. The ombudsman was persuaded by evidence from Bank S's intervention calls that Mr K was extremely convincing and consistent in delivering a detailed cover story about a cruise holiday, responding persuasively to probing questions and warnings. The ombudsman concluded that even if Wise had implemented human interventions, Mr K would more likely than not have given an equally compelling cover story and misled Wise agents, preventing them from unravelling the scam.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Wise should have implemented proportionate and effective risk mitigation interventions (automated fraud prevention system at payment 1, and human interventions at payments 2, 3, and 7), the evidence from Bank S's intervention calls demonstrated that Mr K was extremely convincing, articulate, confident, and consistent in delivering a detailed cover story about a cruise holiday. He responded persuasively to probing questions and warnings without showing hesitation or nervousness. Although Mr K was elderly and had health issues (vulnerability indicators), he presented as alert and capable of making financial decisions. The ombudsman concluded that even if Wise had implemented human interventions, Mr K would more likely than not have given an equally compelling cover story and misled Wise agents, similar to how he misled Bank S despite their strong interventions. The scammers' control over Mr K was so complete that he would likely have persisted with the payments regardless of warnings.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website