Success For Revolut Customer & TLW Client Who
Lost Out Following Investment Scam

As is common in these cases, the first stage is to raise a complaint with your bank. Mrs R did so with Revolut, claiming that the bank failed to protect her from financial harm caused by the apparently legitimate crypto investment scam, and did not help her recover the money after she had reported the scam.

After several months, Revolut responded, claiming that she had made the payments using 3D Secure, an authentication method for card payments made online, which has been designed to prevent fraud. This additional layer of security is frequently in the form of a ‘push notification’, asking you to log into your banking app and confirm that you want to authorise a payment. The account holder may then have the opportunity to add the merchant to a ‘trusted’ list for future transactions.

Revolut concluded that there was no valid reason to reimburse Mrs R and so rejected her claim. Unsatisfied with this outcome, she asked for further help from TLW Solicitors’ specialist Scam Team.

With Shuhag’s help, the case was escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) in February 2024. FOS is an independent, government-backed organisation established over twenty years ago to settle disputes between financial institutions and their customers.

Mrs R argued that given the ‘red flags’, as industry specialists, Revolut should have questioned her about the payments from her account and that she should have been warned about fraud and scams. As seen in many similar investment scams, possible warning signs for the bank included:

• Money was transferred into the Revolut account and then quickly transferred to a cryptocurrency exchange
• Transactions were out of character, in quick succession, and much higher than what would be considered normal behaviour
• Payments were made to a new payee

In response to the unrelenting rise in increasingly sophisticated online fraud, banks must provide scam warnings to customers, particularly when using the Faster Payments System. This could include:

• Asking what the payments were for
• Confirming whether a third party was involved
• Querying any withdrawals

Mrs R argued that had Revolut done so, she would have taken their warnings seriously and reconsidered proceeding with the transactions. Revolut argued that many of their customers use accounts to facilitate payments to cryptocurrency wallets, so the transactions on Mrs R’s account were not out of character in that regard, particularly as the cryptocurrency exchange she used was a legitimate business, and the wallet was in her name. They also highlighted that her bank account was newly opened, so there was no historical information to compare her normal banking activity against.

A FOS Investigator reviewed Mrs R’s claim but rejected it, saying she wasn’t entitled to compensation. He conceded that Revolut should have intervened when she made the fifth payment in January 2023, but believed that, even with scam warnings and additional queries from her bank, Mrs R would still have gone ahead with the subsequent transactions. The Investigator also said that Revolut did all it could to try and recover Mrs R’s lost funds once it became aware of the fraud.

FOS operates a two-stage claims process – an initial investigation by an Investigator and a final, independent review of the case by an Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s decision is final and legally binding.

At this stage, many people might give up, but not TLW’s Shuhag! He made further submissions, using his legal and technical expertise and asked for Mrs R’s case to be reviewed by a FOS Ombudsman. His determination paid off, as the claim was upheld.

Shuhag argued that it was unfair to say that, had Revolut intervened earlier, Mrs R would not have heeded their scam warnings. He argued that she would have been honest about what the payments were for, as she didn’t know she was being scammed.

The Ombudsman reconsidered the whole case and reached a decision based on what was ‘fair and reasonable’, considering good industry practice and guidance, as well as the rules and regulations in force at the time.

While it is accepted that banks are expected to carry out their customers’ instructions promptly, they also have a responsibility to their customers to carry out further checks and even delay or decline transactions that might be due to APP fraud. This has been considered good industry practice since 2017.

Unsurprisingly, as well-resourced industry experts, banks are deemed to have more knowledge of scams than their customers. The Ombudsman highlighted that Revolut should have been aware of the increase in multi-stage fraud, where money is passed through intermediary accounts before being invested, for example, in cryptocurrency.

The Ombudsman criticised Revolut for not recognising that Mrs R was at risk of financial harm from fraud and for not intervening more. Written fraud warnings would have been a proportionate response, and the Ombudsman believed that Mrs R would have taken them seriously. Such warnings could highlight scam red flags, including:

• Targeting victims through social media or email
• Fake positive reviews to add credibility to the investment opportunity
• The existence of fake online crypto trading platforms
• Contact from third-party ‘investment brokers’

The Ombudsman ruled that Mrs R was not to blame, even partially, for her losses, as she had carried out sufficient research before investing. The scam was sophisticated and could have fooled many inexperienced investors.

Revolut was asked to refund Mrs R the money she lost. However, they failed to do so straight away, forcing Shuhag to escalate the case again to FOS for a final decision, which was received in February 2025. The Ombudsman awarded compensation equal to the amount she had lost from the fifth payment onwards, plus interest at 8%, which Mrs R accepted.

Reflecting on the positive result for his client, Shuhag said:

“It might seem that this case took a long time to conclude, however, there are defined steps to follow with both the banks and FOS. For Mrs R, the Ombudsman’s final decision confirmed that she was not to blame for her financial losses and was the victim of a sophisticated scam.

This case also highlights the added benefit working with TLW Solicitors can bring. Mrs R knew she could not have made the claim herself and, without our specialist knowledge and experience of dealing with similar claims, she may never have recovered a penny. She was delighted with the outcome.

If you have lost money due to a scam, get in touch to see how we can help. Do not feel embarrassed or ashamed – help is out there, and you do not have to face this on your own. Our team will assess your case and determine if it is eligible for a ‘no win, no fee’ claim.”