Not upheld: Failure to protect from investment scam; inadequate fraud intervention and detection complaint against Revolut Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6348207 of 2026-05-08T00:00:00+00:00. Failure to protect from investment scam; inadequate fraud intervention and detection complaint against Revolut Ltd. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6348207 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-08T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Revolut Ltd |
| Product | e-money account with cryptocurrency exchange services |
| Claim type | Failure to protect from investment scam; inadequate fraud intervention and detection |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The complaint is not upheld. |
Summary
Ms R fell victim to an investment scam after being approached on social media by a fraudster who posed as an investment opportunity provider. Over one month, she transferred £19,860.84 through her Revolut account, converting funds to cryptocurrency and withdrawing them to the scammer's wallet, funded partly through a £10,000 loan. The scammer coached Ms R to mislead Revolut's fraud detection systems, and Ms R actively avoided manual review by cancelling and resubmitting smaller transactions. Although the ombudsman found Revolut should have intervened at certain cryptocurrency exchange points based on unusual transaction patterns, the complaint was not upheld because the evidence showed Ms R would likely have continued the scam regardless, given her active avoidance of Revolut's interventions, lack of genuine hesitation despite relevant warnings, and the strong psychological pressure from the scammer.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Revolut should have intervened at the second cryptocurrency exchange (3 February 2025) and again at the seventh exchange (24 February 2025) based on the unusual pattern and escalating values of transactions. However, the ombudsman concluded on the balance of probabilities that even with better intervention, Ms R would not have disclosed the true purpose of her payments because she was actively coached to mislead Revolut, actively avoided manual review by cancelling and resubmitting smaller transactions, showed no genuine hesitation despite receiving relevant warnings, and was under strong psychological pressure from the scammer. The evidence demonstrated Ms R's determination to continue funding the scam regardless of Revolut's warnings, and she would likely have found alternative payment methods if Revolut had blocked her account.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Revolut Ltd, all decisions | 3,821 | 18% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website