Not upheld: scam/fraud - investment scam via social media romance fraud complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R lost £9,000 (£7,000 in crypto purchases and £2,000 to a crypto provider) to an investment scam orchestrated by a person he met on social media who formed a romantic relationship with him. Revolut rejected his refund request. The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have intervened before the first large crypto transaction, they did conduct a proportionate fraud prevention check before the £2,000 payment, providing specific warnings about investment scams and crypto fraud. However, Mr R provided inaccurate information during this check, denying unsolicited contact and third-party guidance despite being heavily influenced by the scammer. The ombudsman concluded that Revolut could not reasonably have identified the scam based on Mr R's false responses and that earlier intervention would likely have been equally ineffective, as Mr R also misled his other bank. The complaint was not upheld as Revolut could not reasonably have prevented the loss.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Revolut should have intervened before the first £4,000 crypto exchange, they did carry out a proportionate and appropriate intervention before the £2,000 payment on 7 October 2025. Revolut provided specific warnings about investment scams, social media contact, and crypto fraud, and stressed the importance of truthful answers. However, Mr R provided inaccurate responses to Revolut's questions, denying unsolicited contact and third-party guidance despite being heavily influenced by the scammer. The ombudsman concluded that Revolut could not reasonably have known with certainty that the payment was part of a scam based on Mr R's responses, and that Mr R would likely have provided similarly inaccurate information had Revolut intervened earlier, as evidenced by his misleading his other bank. Therefore, Revolut could not reasonably have prevented the loss. Additionally, recovery was impossible as funds had already been forwarded to scammers and crypto transactions are irreversible.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website