Not upheld: scam / fraud - refund liability complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D fell victim to a job scam after being contacted via social media with a fake employment opportunity. He made 7 transactions totalling £6,365.67 between June and July 2025, comprising cryptocurrency conversions and payments to cryptocurrency exchanges. Revolut intervened twice with onscreen questions and warnings, but Mr D misled them about the payment purpose, selecting 'investment' instead of 'job opportunity' as instructed by the scammer. The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have intervened on the final payment, they could not have uncovered the scam due to Mr D's dishonesty, and even a phone call would likely not have changed the outcome given the scammer's strict instructions. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Revolut should have intervened on the final payment (£3,295.67 on 8 July 2025) and did so appropriately with onscreen questions and warnings, they could not have uncovered the scam because Mr D dishonestly selected 'investment' as the payment purpose when instructed by the scammer, preventing Revolut from identifying the job scam risk and providing a relevant warning. Even if Revolut had called Mr D, he would likely have continued lying about the payment purpose due to scammer instructions and fear of losing the job. Revolut must balance fraud prevention with minimal disruption to legitimate payments. The earlier payments were too low value to warrant intervention.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website