Not upheld: scam prevention and intervention - failure to prevent financial loss from investment scam complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss S was the victim of a cryptocurrency investment scam after seeing an advert on social media. She used her Revolut account to exchange fiat currency for cryptocurrency over 40 times between June and September 2025, sending the cryptocurrency to scammers. When she could not withdraw her supposed profits, she realised the scam and claimed Revolut should have prevented her loss through better intervention. The ombudsman found that while Revolut could have intervened more directly in the cryptocurrency exchanges, it was unlikely such intervention would have prevented the loss because Miss S was dishonest with both Revolut and her other bank about the true purpose of the payments. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While the ombudsman acknowledged that the number of cryptocurrency exchanges in a short period was arguably unusual enough to warrant direct intervention from Revolut, the key issue was whether such intervention would likely have prevented the loss. The ombudsman found that Miss S was dishonest with both Revolut and her other bank about the true nature of the payments. When her other bank intervened and asked direct questions, Miss S claimed the payments were for holidays and travel rather than admitting the investment scheme. Therefore, it was most likely that had Revolut intervened directly, Miss S would similarly have been dishonest and the payments would have proceeded anyway. The ombudsman also noted that cryptocurrency withdrawals themselves are not a regulated activity within the FOS's remit.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website