Not upheld: scam protection / investment fraud complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B lost over £90,000 to an investment scam via his Revolut account between February and May 2025, receiving substantial returns that appeared to validate the investment. Revolut provided warnings when Mr B made a large payment to a new beneficiary, but these related to friends and family transfers rather than investments because Mr B had selected the incorrect payment purpose. The ombudsman found that while Revolut has obligations to protect customers from fraud, the scam was too sophisticated and well-documented for intervention to have made a difference, and therefore Revolut could not fairly be held responsible for Mr B's losses.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Revolut has obligations to protect customers from fraud and scams, the ombudsman found that causation was not established. The scam was highly sophisticated with genuine-appearing documentation and substantial returns that would have convinced Mr B of legitimacy. Even if Revolut had intervened with human checks or provided investment-specific warnings, the ombudsman found it more likely than not that Mr B would not have discovered the fraud or stopped making payments, given the evidence he possessed and the returns he had already received. The ombudsman noted that Mr B had provided incorrect information about the payment purpose (possibly due to coaching by the broker), which meant the warnings provided were not relevant to investment scams.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website