Not upheld: inadequate fraud protection / failure to intervene on suspicious transactions complaint against Wise Payments Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T lost £99,820 to an investment scam after opening a Wise account in April 2025 and making seven international transfers as instructed by a fraudster posing as an investment company agent. The scammer coached Mr T on what to say if questioned, and Mr T provided false answers to intervention calls from his sending bank. While the ombudsman found that Wise should have intervened based on the suspicious transaction pattern, the complaint was not upheld because the intervention would likely have been unsuccessful given Mr T's determination to proceed with the payments based on the scammer's coaching. The ombudsman noted that Mr T's vulnerabilities were not disclosed to Wise and therefore could not have been reasonably identified by the firm.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that the pattern of large transactions in close succession from a newly opened account should have triggered intervention by Wise. However, the ombudsman found that even if Wise had intervened, Mr T would have provided the same false answers he gave to the sending bank's intervention calls, as he had been coached by the scammer on what to say. The ombudsman noted that Mr T's vulnerabilities were not disclosed to Wise and therefore Wise could not have been reasonably aware of them. The critical finding was that the intervention would not have been successful in preventing the scam because Mr T was determined to proceed with the payments based on the scammer's instructions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website