Not upheld: fraud marker registration and account closure complaint against Monzo Bank Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Monzo Bank unfairly recorded a Cifas fraud marker against him after he received £300 that was later reported as fraudulent. Mr A claimed he was unwittingly used by a friend who asked to use his account because theirs had a problem, and that he withdrew and handed the funds to his friend without realizing they were fraudulent. However, when Monzo questioned the transaction, Mr A provided false information claiming the payment was a gift. The ombudsman found that despite Mr A's claims of vulnerability, language barriers, and being new to the country, the evidence—particularly the false information provided to Monzo—pointed to complicity rather than unwitting involvement. The ombudsman upheld Monzo's decision to register the marker and close the account, finding the bank had sufficient evidence to justify its actions.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Mr A claimed to be unwittingly used, the evidence pointed to complicity. The key concerns were: (1) the lack of a satisfactory explanation for why the friend couldn't have had their acquaintance withdraw the funds directly rather than involving Mr A's account; (2) Mr A provided false information to Monzo claiming the payment was a gift when he knew it was a favour for his friend, suggesting an attempt to mislead the bank; (3) the video call evidence was limited as it lacked Mr A's voice and was recorded after the marker was filed, making it less useful; and (4) Mr A's contradictory statements about whether the payment sender was a friend or someone he'd never met. The ombudsman concluded that even accounting for language barriers and stress, Mr A would have known the difference between receiving a gift and doing a favour, and that providing false information to the bank demonstrated knowledge of wrongdoing.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website