Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Revolut Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6367592 of 2026-06-29T00:00:00+00:00. Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Revolut Ltd. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6367592 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-29T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Revolut Ltd |
| Product | Current account |
| Claim type | Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mrs H lost over £300,000 to investment and recovery scams after opening a Revolut account in June 2025. She was deceived by scammers posing as investment managers and recovery experts, and made numerous payments between July and September 2025 via her Revolut account to cryptocurrency wallets under her control before the funds reached the scammers. Revolut issued 27 in-app warnings and made three phone calls to Mrs H during the scam period, but she consistently denied scammer involvement and provided cover stories. The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have intervened more robustly by requesting supporting evidence, such intervention would not have prevented the losses given Mrs H's deep psychological manipulation by the scammers, her consistent deception of multiple financial institutions, and her demonstrated ability to find alternative payment channels when blocked. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have intervened more robustly by probing Mrs H's answers further and requesting supporting evidence of cryptocurrency wallet statements, such intervention would not have prevented her losses. The key finding was that Mrs H was so deeply under the scammers' spell that she would have provided convincing cover stories regardless of further questioning. This conclusion was based on: (1) her consistent refusal to disclose scammer involvement to multiple financial institutions; (2) her self-assured and assertive demeanour during all fraud interventions; (3) her awareness of being scammed on multiple occasions yet continuing to make payments; (4) her active concealment of the scams from family and friends despite their warnings; and (5) her demonstrated ability to find alternative payment channels whenever one was blocked. The ombudsman also found that recovery of funds would not have been possible as Mrs H had sent money to accounts in her own control before the scammers transferred it onwards, and scammers typically empty accounts within minutes or hours.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Revolut Ltd, all decisions | 3,893 | 18% |
| Fraud reimbursement (APP scams), all decisions | 20,976 | 21% |
| Current account, all decisions | 52,014 | 19% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website