DRN-6226329

The complaint Ms N complains Revolut Ltd recorded a marker against her on a national fraud database and closed her account. She doesn’t think it’s treated her fairly. What happened Ms N received two payments into her account in September 2024. She transferred the funds to another account she held in her name. However, the payments were later reported as being the result of a fraud. Revolut restricted the account and Ms N was asked to provide information to support why she had been entitled to the funds. When Revolut didn’t get a response, it completed its review and decided to file a misuse of facility marker at Cifas, as it believed she had been complicit in receiving fraudulent funds. It also closed the account. Ms N found out about the marker and complained that she’d not done anything to cause this. She asked Revolut to remove the marker, submitting she’d opened the account for a friend, so that they could get their wages paid, because they were having a problem with their account. She sent Revolut screen shots of conversations that she said were with them at the time. Revolut reviewed these with its specialist team, but it didn’t think it had made a mistake in the steps it had taken. Dissatisfied, Ms N contacted us and said she wanted to challenge the bank’s decision as she didn’t believe it was fair. One of our investigators considered what Ms N had said and provided along with everything else, but concluded Revolut’s evidence was enough to load her details onto Cifas, noting she hadn’t made any contact when it had reached out to her, she’d sent the funds to herself, and the screen shots weren’t enough to support what she had said about being an unwitting participant. Ms N refuted that she’d done anything untoward and said she wanted her case reviewed by an ombudsman, in line with the second and final stage of our process. She highlighted that if she had any direct involvement, she wouldn’t have reported the matter to the Police and Action Fraud, and she’d seen the notification from Revolut too late to respond. 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 have read and considered everything that Ms N has said and provided. As an informal dispute resolution service, we are tasked with reaching a fair and reasonable decision with the minimum of formality. In doing so, it’s not necessary for me to respond to every point made, but to concentrate on what I consider to be the crux of the issue. Cifas’s guidance says that a bank must be able to show that fraudulent funds have entered

-- 1 of 2 --

the customer’s account, whether they are retained or pass through the account. Secondly, the bank will need to have strong evidence to show that the customer was deliberately dishonest in receiving the fraudulent payment and knew it was, or might be, an illegitimate payment. This can include allowing someone else to use their account in order to receive an illegitimate payment. But a marker should not be registered against someone who was unwitting; there should be enough evidence to show deliberate complicity. Having considered this, I’m not upholding this complaint, and I’ll explain why. Revolut placed a Cifas marker on Ms N’s record because it felt it had enough evidence of account misuse. I’ve reviewed what happened and I’ve considered what Ms N has said about her involvement and being unwitting. This includes the screen shots. But I haven’t found what she’s said persuasive. In coming to this conclusion, I’ve thought about the fact that there isn’t a satisfactory explanation why funds needed to be paid into the account with Revolut given Ms N already had a bank account elsewhere. To go to the lengths of opening an account that wasn’t intended for her use, suggests Ms N must have known this wasn’t legitimate. I think this is further supported by the fact that she didn’t get in touch with Revolut in September 2024, when it tried reaching out to her about the payments. Ms N says she didn’t see the notification at the time but there’s also the fact that the payments had the reference “car” and she sent the funds on using another reference “debt”, which whatever the explanation, aren’t indicative of a wage payment and in ordinary circumstances would raise red flags. Furthermore, if she sent the funds on to her friend, then clearly his account was working, and it would have been obvious he didn’t have a problem, and she could have sent the money direct. The activity and any suggestions/explanations provided would’ve raised significant concerns. I’m cognisant of how funds move through accounts in cases where there’s been fraud, and given what I’ve seen, I’m satisfied Revolut were justified in its actions on the filing it made. I know Ms N is upset her record has been affected and I do hope she’s able to get appropriate support with how she’s feeling. But based on the available evidence, I’m afraid I don’t think Revolut acted unfairly when it recorded information on the Cifas database and closed the account (for completeness there’s provision for that in the account agreement). In these circumstances, Revolut doesn’t need to offer Ms N her account back either. Ultimately, I have found Revolut has strong evidence to support its actions and Ms N hasn’t been able to explain the account activity to a reasonable standard. Therefore, I won’t be requiring Revolut to remove the information. I appreciate that my decision will come as a great frustration and disappointment to her. But for the reasons set out above, these are my conclusions looking at the evidence objectively. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms N to accept or reject my decision before 25 May 2026. Sarita Taylor Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --