Not upheld: Fraud reimbursement (APP scams) complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T complained that Revolut should refund losses from a cryptocurrency investment scam in which he was defrauded of substantial sums between 2023 and 2024. The ombudsman found that cryptocurrency withdrawals fall outside FOS jurisdiction as cryptocurrency is unregulated. Regarding the exchanges into cryptocurrency made via Revolut's platform, the ombudsman concluded Revolut was not required to intervene as the individual transactions were low-value (mostly under £1,700) and spread over more than a year. Although Revolut did intervene on several occasions, Mr T provided false information in response to Revolut's inquiries, making it difficult to uncover the scam. The ombudsman found no evidence that further intervention would have prevented the scam or that Mr T was vulnerable. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that cryptocurrency withdrawals fall outside FOS jurisdiction as cryptocurrency is not regulated by the FCA and cryptocurrency services are not listed in DISP 2.3. Regarding the exchanges into cryptocurrency, the ombudsman considered whether Revolut should have intervened. The exchanges were made over more than a year with low individual values (mostly well below £1,700), and did not pose significant risk warranting intervention. Although Revolut did intervene on several occasions, Mr T's dishonest responses to Revolut's questions made it difficult to uncover the scam. Even if Revolut should have intervened further, there was insufficient evidence that Mr T would have been more honest, so Revolut did not miss an opportunity to prevent the scam. The ombudsman rejected Mr T's claim of vulnerability, finding no evidence he was unable to make sound financial decisions or that Revolut was aware of any such inability.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website