Revolut Ltd · DRN-6151455

The complaint Mr B complains Revolut Ltd (“Revolut”) hasn’t refunded funds he lost as the result of a scam. What happened Both parties are familiar with the circumstances of the complaint, so I’ll only summarise the key details here. Mr B said he received a call from a scammer who told him there was an account in his name which held cryptocurrency and to be able to withdraw the funds he needed to pay £700 into the account. Mr B said after making the payment the scammer requested further deposits for fees and taxes. When he received no funds back Mr B realised he’d been scammed and contacted Revolut but it didn’t refund him. Unhappy with Revolut’s response, Mr B raised the matter with the Financial Ombudsman Service. One of our Investigators looked into the complaint and didn’t uphold it. They felt where Revolut had intervened it did so proportionately and even if Revolut had intervened further, it wouldn’t have made a difference due to the coaching Mr B was receiving from the scammer. As an agreement could not be reached, the complaint has been passed to me for a final decision. Preliminary matters Revolut hasn’t responded to the investigator’s findings on matters relating to our jurisdiction. I’ve therefore assumed that it now accepts the investigator’s stance, and I only need to decide the merits of the complaint. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I’m sorry that Mr B has been the victim of a scam. I realise he’s lost a significant sum of money and I don’t underestimate the impact this has had on him. And so, I’d like to reassure Mr B that I’ve read and considered everything he’s said in support of his complaint. But I’ll focus my comments on what I think is relevant. If I don’t mention any specific point, it’s not because I’ve failed to take it on board and think about it, but because I don’t think I need to comment on it to reach what I think is a fair and reasonable outcome. I know this will come as a disappointment to Mr B but having done so, I won’t be upholding his complaint for broadly the same reasons as our Investigator. I’ll explain why. In broad terms, the starting position at law is that banks and other payment service providers are expected to process transactions that a customer authorises it to make, in accordance with the Payment Services Regulations and the terms and conditions of the customer’s account.

-- 1 of 3 --

Mr B authorised the transactions in question here – so even though he was tricked into doing so and didn’t intend for his money to end up in the hands of a scammer, he is presumed liable in the first instance. But as a matter of good industry practice, Revolut should also have taken proactive steps to identify and help prevent transactions – particularly unusual or uncharacteristic transactions – that could involve fraud or be the result of a scam. However, there is a balance to be struck: as while banks and Electronic Money Institutions should be alert to fraud and scams to act in their customers’ best interests, they can’t reasonably be involved in every transaction. I’ve thought about whether Revolut acted fairly and reasonably in its dealings with Mr B, or whether it should have done more than it did. Mr B made numerous successful transactions from his Revolut account as part of the scam and attempted to make several more. This included exchanging GBP to cryptocurrency and making payments to a legitimate cryptocurrency provider. Revolut intervened several times and asked Mr B questions to better understand the reason for the transactions and the circumstances around them. Mr B wasn’t entirely forthcoming with Revolut during those interventions, for example when asked he didn’t disclose that there was third party involvement or that he was being guided and pressured to make the transactions. I’m satisfied that Revolut ought to have intervened on some transactions where it didn’t, like the exchanges, but I’m not persuaded that any intervention from Revolut would have uncovered the scam or prevented Mr B’s loss. I’ll explain why. I should explain that for me to find it fair and reasonable that Revolut should refund Mr B requires more than a finding that it ought to have intervened further than it did. I would need to find not only that Revolut failed to proportionately intervene where it ought reasonably to have done so – but crucially I’d need to find that but for this failure the subsequent loss would’ve been avoided. That latter element concerns causation. A proportionate intervention will not always result in the prevention of a transaction. And if I find it more likely than not that such a proportionate intervention by Revolut wouldn’t have revealed the transactions were part of a fraud or scam, then I couldn’t fairly hold Revolut liable for not having prevented them from being made. Having reviewed the communications between Mr B and the scammer I can see he was heavily coached during interventions with Revolut. For example, during a direct intervention with Mr B via the in-app chat, Mr B shared the questions Revolut asked him with the scammer who told him how to respond which he did. Coaching of this nature is difficult for a firm to counter, and I believe Mr B seeking, and following, the scammer’s guidance shows the degree with which he was under the scammer’s spell. Additionally, the communications show when Mr B experienced an issue during transactions he made from an account he held with a high street bank, the scammer told Mr B to open a Revolut account which Mr B did to facilitate the scam. Due to the heavy coaching, I’m not persuaded that any intervention from Revolut would have uncovered the scam or prevented Mr B’s losses. It therefore wouldn’t be fair or reasonable for me to hold Revolut liable for them. And there isn’t any prospect of recovering cryptocurrency transactions. I don’t think Mr B realised the impact mis-leading Revolut would have but a firm’s intervention relies on a customer being accurate and where that doesn’t happen as is the case here, it hinders a firm’s ability to uncover a scam and can impact the actions it takes.

-- 2 of 3 --

I’m sorry to disappoint Mr B further, but I’ve thought carefully about everything that has happened, and with all the circumstances of this complaint in mind I don’t think Revolut needs to refund Mr B’s money or pay any compensation. I realise this means he’s out of pocket and I’m really sorry Mr B’s lost this money. However, for the reasons I’ve explained, I don’t think I can fairly or reasonably uphold this complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I do not uphold this complaint against Revolut Ltd. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Charlotte Mulvihill Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --