Not upheld: investment scam / authorised push payment fraud / inadequate scam detection and intervention complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Ms S fell victim to an investment scam beginning in early 2024, where scammers persuaded her to invest money and later demanded additional payments under threats of money laundering accusations and blackmail. In August 2024, Ms S opened a Revolut account on scammer instruction and made three international payments totalling £10,753.52. Revolut sent automated warnings and conducted telephone questioning, but Ms S provided inaccurate answers because she had been coached by scammers on what to say. The ombudsman found that Revolut's interventions were proportionate and reasonable, and that further intervention would not have been effective given Ms S's level of control by the scammers and desperation to recover her earlier investment. The complaint was not upheld, and no money was recovered due to the year-long delay in reporting the scam.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Ms S authorised the payments under coercion and misinformation, Revolut's interventions were proportionate and reasonable. Revolut sent better automated warnings and conducted probing telephone questioning on 7-8 August 2024. Ms S provided inaccurate answers to Revolut's scam detection questions because she had been coached by scammers on what to say. The ombudsman concluded that by the time payments were made from Revolut, Ms S was so deeply under the scammers' control and desperate to recover her earlier investment that further or better intervention would not have been effective. The ombudsman noted that had Ms S answered truthfully (e.g., stating the payment was for investment purposes, that she had been asked to download software, and that she did not control the receiving account), Revolut would likely have taken additional protective steps. However, Ms S's coached dishonesty made scam detection more difficult for Revolut.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website