Not upheld: scam / fraud - failure to prevent payments to scammer complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr O fell victim to a fake investment scam advertised on social media and made multiple payments through his Revolut account, including cryptocurrency exchanges and transfers to accounts in his own name. Revolut intervened on at least ten occasions and provided warnings about fake investment schemes, celebrity endorsements, and pressure tactics. However, Mr O provided false answers to Revolut's automated questions (guided by the scammer) and ignored the warnings. The ombudsman found that while Revolut could have intervened further, such intervention would not have prevented the scam given Mr O's trust in the scammer and willingness to provide false information. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have intervened further on some occasions, particularly regarding cryptocurrency-related payments, such intervention would not have prevented the scam. Mr O was deliberately providing false information to Revolut's questions and ignoring clear warnings that were applicable to his circumstances. The scammer had Mr O's trust, and there was insufficient evidence that further intervention by Revolut would have resulted in Mr O providing accurate information or heeding warnings. Revolut's multiple interventions (at least ten occasions) with specific, relevant warnings demonstrated reasonable fraud prevention efforts.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website