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

Decision detail

Summary

Ms O fell victim to a job scam and made two cryptocurrency payments totalling £7,790 from her Revolut account. She claimed Revolut should refund her losses, arguing they should have intervened more robustly given the high-value payments from a newly opened account. While the ombudsman acknowledged that Revolut's intervention on the second payment could have gone further, it found that Ms O was being coached by scammers to be dishonest with financial institutions and had already lied to another bank about payment purposes. The ombudsman concluded that even with better intervention, Ms O would likely have continued to be dishonest about the true purpose of the payments, preventing Revolut from providing a relevant warning. Additionally, Ms O's subsequent attempt to obtain a loan from the fraudulent company suggested she might have continued sending funds if able to do so. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the legal starting position that EMIs must process authorised payments in accordance with Payment Services Regulations. While Ms O authorised the payments, she did so under the mistaken belief it was legitimate employment. The ombudsman found that although Revolut's intervention on the second payment could have gone further by referring Ms O to a fraud specialist, this would not have prevented her loss. The critical factor was that Ms O was being coached by scammers to be dishonest with financial institutions. She had already lied to another bank about the purpose of payments, so it was more likely than not she would have continued to be dishonest with Revolut and would not have disclosed the true job opportunity purpose. Without knowing the true purpose, Revolut could not have provided a relevant warning that would have resonated with her. Additionally, Ms O's subsequent attempt to obtain a loan from the fraudulent company on 19 June suggested she might have continued sending funds if she had obtained the money, indicating Revolut's intervention may not have prevented the loss.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website