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

Decision detail

Summary

B, a limited company directed by Mr C, complained that Starling Bank improperly lodged a CIFAS fraud marker and closed its account. Between March and May 2025, B received six payments totalling £17,750 from victims of various scams, which Starling identified through fraud notifications from other banks. When questioned, Mr C provided inconsistent explanations that only partially matched the evidence and contradicted his earlier statements. The ombudsman found that Starling had clear, relevant and rigorous evidence meeting CIFAS requirements that B was involved in receiving and using fraudulent funds, and therefore properly lodged the marker. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the CIFAS requirements that there must be reasonable grounds to believe an identified fraud has been committed and the evidence must be clear, relevant and rigorous. The ombudsman found that Starling had sufficient evidence from fraud notifications by other banks, the pattern of payments, and the inconsistencies in Mr C's explanations. The evidence suggested B was receiving fraudulent funds and knew this was the case. Mr C's limited evidence of currency exchange services only explained some payments and contradicted earlier statements. The activity appeared consistent with money mule operations. Therefore, Starling acted properly in lodging the marker.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website