Not upheld: scam / investment fraud (pump and dump scheme) complaint against Revolut Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6348519 of 2026-05-22T00:00:00+00:00. scam / investment fraud (pump and dump scheme) complaint against Revolut Ltd. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6348519 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-22T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Revolut Ltd |
| Product | payment services / current account |
| Claim type | scam / investment fraud (pump and dump scheme) |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. Complaint not upheld. |
Summary
Ms C lost £162,000 in a pump and dump investment scam after being directed online to purchase shares through a legitimate regulated broker. She made six authorised payments via Revolut between May and June 2025, which were subsequently used to buy shares in a company whose price then collapsed. Ms C complained that Revolut should have prevented the payments or refunded her losses. The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have monitored for unusual transactions and could have questioned the high-value payments, it could not reasonably have identified the scheme as fraudulent given the legitimacy of the broker and company involved. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Under the Payment Services Regulations, Ms C is responsible for authorised payments she made. While Revolut should have systems to monitor for fraud and unusual transactions, and could have questioned the high-value payments inconsistent with her account usage, it could not reasonably have identified this as a scam. The payments were to a legitimate regulated broker purchasing shares in a legitimate company. Even if Revolut had intervened and advised Ms C to research, she would have found the broker and company were legitimate. Ms C should have conducted these checks herself given the payment values involved. Therefore, Revolut was not in a position to prevent the loss.
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