Not upheld: scam - failure to prevent cryptocurrency fraud complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss O complained that Revolut failed to refund funds she lost to a task-based job scam in May-June 2025. She had exchanged fiat currency into cryptocurrency and sent it to scammer-controlled wallets after being contacted via messaging app. Revolut intervened multiple times with questions and warnings, including a phone call on 25 May where it warned her about potential scams, but Miss O provided misleading answers guided by the scammer. The ombudsman found Revolut's interventions were proportionate and included relevant warnings, and that Miss O's susceptibility to the scammer's influence meant she would not have heeded more specific warnings. Although Miss O was vulnerable due to recent bereavement, Revolut was unaware of this and had no mechanism to recover cryptocurrency, so the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Revolut had a duty to act on authorised transactions but should intervene if alert to fraud risk. Revolut's interventions were proportionate, occurring from an early point in the scam. Although interventions occurred at withdrawal stage rather than exchange stage, this would not have changed Miss O's response as she was following the scammer's guidance on how to answer questions. Miss O was given relevant warnings about cryptocurrency investment scams and third-party wallets. Even if Revolut had provided more specific job scam warnings, Miss O would likely have proceeded given her susceptibility to the scammer's influence. Revolut was unaware of Miss O's vulnerability and nothing in the conversation indicated she required additional protection. Recovery of cryptocurrency falls outside FOS jurisdiction and no recovery mechanism exists.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website