Not upheld: Account closure without notice complaint against Revolut Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss R complained that Revolut unfairly registered a CIFAS marker against her for misuse of facility. She claimed she unknowingly acted as a money mule for her flatmate, receiving fraudulent funds and transferring them to his account under pressure and threats, without financial benefit. Revolut maintained the marker was justified based on fraudulent funds flowing through her account. The ombudsman rejected Miss R's complaint, finding that while she may have been naive and vulnerable, the evidence suggested she was complicit in the arrangement: her account of events contained implausibilities, she retained £120 without justification, failed to respond to Revolut's inquiries, and did not report the matter despite opportunities to do so.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Cifas standard requiring reasonable grounds to believe fraud occurred and clear, relevant, rigorous evidence. The bank statements proved fraudulent funds entered and exited Miss R's account. The ombudsman found Miss R's account of events implausible given the contradictions: her flatmate claimed he couldn't receive payments yet she successfully transferred money to him; she retained £120 without supporting evidence; she failed to respond to Revolut's inquiries or report the matter despite opportunities to do so; and threatening messages suggested an arrangement existed. While acknowledging Miss R's youth and anxiety, the ombudsman concluded she ought to have questioned the suspicious circumstances and had opportunities to report the activity if genuinely unwitting.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website