Not upheld: Account closure without notice complaint against Monzo Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr O complained that Monzo unfairly registered a CIFAS marker against him for an informal currency exchange arrangement with a casual acquaintance. Mr O received £2,000 into his Monzo account, transferred it to his Lloyds account, and then to third parties, ultimately sending £3,071 (using £1,071 of his own funds) while his account depleted to less than £400. When Monzo contacted Mr O about the transfers, he provided limited information and avoided further questioning. The ombudsman found that Monzo had reasonable grounds to believe fraud or financial crime was committed based on the evidence of funds passing through Mr O's account to unknown parties, his use of personal funds suggesting involvement, and his evasive responses to Monzo's inquiries. The ombudsman concluded that the CIFAS marker was fairly registered and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Monzo had reasonable grounds to believe fraud or financial crime was committed based on the totality of evidence: funds passing through Mr O's account to unknown parties, Mr O using his own funds to supplement transfers (suggesting involvement in the arrangement), Mr O's failure to ask questions about the arrangement or provide explanations when contacted by Monzo, and Mr O's evasive response when Monzo sought clarification. The ombudsman was not persuaded that Mr O would not have realised something was improper, particularly given the significant depletion of his account and Monzo's direct inquiry. The evidence met the four pillars burden of proof required under the CIFAS National Fraud Database Handbook.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website