Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained that Revolut failed to refund funds he lost to a sophisticated safe account scam in October 2025. Mr M deposited funds into Revolut and transferred them to his digital wallet with a cryptocurrency exchange, where they were stolen. Revolut declined to refund the loss because the payments were authorised and sent to accounts in Mr M's own name. The ombudsman found that while Revolut's interventions could have been better, the Faster Payment Scheme Reimbursement Rules did not apply because the funds were sent to accounts controlled by Mr M, not scammers. Although Revolut provided warnings and conducted a welfare check, the ombudsman was not persuaded that proportionate intervention would have prevented the loss, given the scam's sophistication, the scammers' extensive control over Mr M (approximately 20 hours of calls), and Mr M's pre-conditioning to ignore warnings. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that while the Faster Payment Scheme Reimbursement Rules came into force on 7 October 2024, they do not apply here because the payments were sent to accounts controlled by Mr M (his own digital wallet), not to accounts controlled by scammers. Although Revolut's interventions could have been better and good industry practice required warnings about suspicious activity, the ombudsman was not persuaded that proportionate intervention would more likely than not have prevented the loss. The scam was highly sophisticated, the scammers maintained extensive control over Mr M through approximately 20 hours of calls, coached him on how to answer questions, and convinced him he was acting in his own legitimate interests. Mr M ignored multiple warnings from multiple banks because he had been pre-conditioned by the scammers to expect and distrust such warnings. The scammers successfully persuaded Mr M to circumvent restrictions placed by other banks. Given the plausibility and professional execution of the scam, the ombudsman concluded it was most likely the scammers would have persuaded Mr M to continue even with better intervention.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website