Not upheld: fraud reimbursement and inadequate fraud prevention measures complaint against Wise Payments Limited (trading as Wise)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B lost money to an investment fraud after responding to a social media advertisement and sending multiple high-value payments from his Wise account to a fraudulent trading platform. When he attempted to withdraw funds, he was blocked and asked to pay additional fees before discovering the fraud. Wise reimbursed 33% of the loss, but Mr B sought further compensation through the FOS. The ombudsman found that while Wise ought to have provided more interventions and warnings, Mr B would likely have ignored them given the fraudsters' strong influence over him, as evidenced by his ignoring similar warnings from his bank. Therefore, the complaint was not upheld and Wise's 33% reimbursement was deemed fair.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Wise ought to have provided more interventions and warnings, the ombudsman concluded that the key question was whether such interventions would have prevented the loss. The ombudsman found that Mr B's bank had already intervened and warned him about crypto investment frauds, but Mr B ignored these warnings because the fraudsters had built such a close relationship with him that he was willing to follow their instructions without hesitation. On the balance of probabilities, the ombudsman concluded that Mr B would have reacted similarly to any interventions from Wise and that the fraudsters' influence was too strong to break. Therefore, Wise could not fairly be held liable for a loss it would not have been able to prevent.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website