Not upheld: scam - investment fraud, failure to prevent payment complaint against Wise Payments Limited trading as Wise

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C, on behalf of company G, lost £100,000 in an investment scam with a luxury goods supplier in June 2024. He made five payments of £20,000 each on the same day after being introduced to the investment by an overseas acquaintance. Mr C had conducted due diligence including meeting the owner in person and reviewing contracts. When the owner became distant and delayed returns, Mr C discovered it was a scam. Wise refused to refund the money. The ombudsman found that while Wise should have intervened by the third payment to ask questions and provide a scam warning, such intervention would not have prevented the loss given the investment's apparent legitimacy. Therefore, the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Wise should have intervened by the third £20,000 payment to ask questions and provide a scam warning, the ombudsman found that such intervention would not have prevented the loss. The investment appeared legitimate based on the customer's due diligence: he had met the owner in person, seen contracts and statements, and the company ran legitimate-seeming sporting events. An investment scam warning would not have resonated given these circumstances, and the ombudsman could not find that but for Wise's failure to intervene, the loss would have been avoided. Therefore, it would not be fair to hold Wise liable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website