Revolut Ltd · DRN-5982021

The complaint Mr A says Revolut Ltd unfairly blocked and then closed his account. What happened The detailed background to this complaint is well known to both parties. So, I’ll only provide a brief overview of some of the key events here. Mr A opened his Revolut account in October 2024. In March 2025 Revolut blocked Mr A’s account and conducted a review. This block meant the account could not send or receive funds. The review included Revolut asking Mr A about account activity and his entitlement to incoming funds. Mr A provided evidence in the form of photos and screenshots – he said we he was involved in crypto trading and funds were sent in as a result of completed sales. Revolut considered this evidence as part of its review. Revolut made the decision to close the account immediately. £47.67 was returned to source, and the account closed in mid-May 2025. Mr A raised a formal complaint regarding the handling of his account, explaining he had been the victim of a scam. Mr A stated the crypto platform activity would cease on the account, and he was committed to strict compliance with the account terms going forward. Revolut reviewed these concerns and explained the review and closure were carried out in line with its regulatory duties, and the decision was made carefully. Revolut assured Mr A it carried out a thorough investigation, and it wouldn’t be returning funds to him or providing extra rationale for its decision. Mr A remained unhappy and referred his complaint to this service. An Investigator gathered the relevant evidence, and in summary, made the following findings: • Revolut has acted in line with its legal and regulatory obligations. • The evidence doesn’t support Mr A’s comments about his trading with crypto. Credits were received in from third parties and transfers made out to other accounts in Mr A’s name. • Revolut can decide who it wants as a customer and doesn’t need to give reasons to Mr A regarding its decision to review and close his account. • Mr A’s account terms allow Revolut to block, review and close the account. Mr A disagreed with the Investigator’s review, stating he was innocent and that all he wanted was the account reopened. As no agreement could be reached the complaint was referred to me – an ombudsman – for a final decision. 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

I appreciate Mr A was disappointed by the Investigator’s opinion. I’d like to reassure Mr A that I’ve considered the whole file and what’s he’s said. But I’ll concentrate my comments on what I think is relevant. If I don’t mention any specific point, it’s not because I 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. No discourtesy is intended by me in taking this approach. Our rules allow me to take this approach. It simply reflects the informal nature of our service as a free alternative to the courts. Having looked at the complaint fully, my review of the evidence has led me to the same overall conclusions as the Investigator previously set out and for much the same reasons. I will explain why. I would add too that our rules allow us to receive evidence in confidence. We may treat evidence from banks as confidential for a number of reasons – for example, if it contains security information, or commercially sensitive information. Some of the information Revolut has provided is information that we considered should be kept confidential. This means I haven’t been able to share a lot of detail with Mr A, but I’d like to reassure him that I have considered everything that he’s told us and will share what I can to help explain my review. The crux of Mr A’s complaint is that Revolut unfairly reviewed his account. Revolut has legal and regulatory obligations to be alert to instances of fraud and scams. And to act in their customer’s best interests. This type of monitoring and review is an important part of Revolut’s legal and regulatory duties. Revolut has provided its rationale for blocking the account – which includes the account activity, and I am satisfied it was acting in line with these duties when it decided to block the account. Revolut has shared in confidence with this service the steps it took when it reviewed the account and the evidence it relied on. I find the action it took to be reasonable and the basis of its decision to be persuasive and clear. Mr A says this information should be shared with him. But Revolut isn’t under an obligation to provide specific details to Mr A of how it reached its decision and the factors that influenced it. This means I am unable to share this information with Mr A or compel Revolut to do so. I am also mindful that at the time the account was blocked Revolut asked Mr A for details of incoming credits into his account. Mr A responded explaining he was engaged in crypto trading and he was entitled to the funds as sales had been completed on the platform he used. Revolut reviewed the screenshots Mr A sent in of confirmed payments but asked for more details – such as the chats with the sender of funds to support the sales and Mr A’s trading statement. Mr A wasn’t able to provide evidence that in Revolut’s view supported his entitlement to funds. Based on the evidence I’ve seen I find this a reasonable approach to take. I can see Mr A engaged in the process and I don’t dispute he was willing to provide details. However, it is for Revolut to determine the nature of the information and evidence it requires to ensure it is able to satisfy its legal and regulatory obligations. Revolut’s review of the account led to its decision to close Mr A’s account immediately. Revolut says this was in line with its account terms. Having reviewed the terms, they allow for immediate closure in specific scenarios, and I am satisfied Mr A’s case meets these requirements. Having considered the information Revolut has provided in confidence and the account terms, I am satisfied Revolut has acted fairly in closing the accounts in this manner. Ultimately Revolut is entitled to set their own policies and part of that will form their risk criteria. It is not in my remit to say what policies or risk appetite Revolut should have in place. I can however, while considering the circumstances of individual complaints, decide whether I think customers have been treated fairly. As long as they reach their decisions fairly, it doesn’t breach law or regulations and is in keeping with the terms and conditions of

-- 2 of 3 --

the account, then this service won’t usually intervene. They shouldn’t decline to continue to provide banking services without proper reason, for instance of unfair bias or unlawful discrimination. Based on the evidence provided by Revolut I am satisfied it has reached this decision fairly, taking into account its risk guidance and regulatory considerations. This means I won’t be asking Revolut to offer Mr A another account. Mr A asserts his innocence in the receipt of multiple funds into his account – he says he is a victim as he had been scammed whilst using a crypto trading platform. I can see the investigator asked for M A to provide evidence to support this assertion – and Mr A has sent in screenshots and his chat with the third party that he says confirms sales. But I don’t find these to be persuasive or adequate in support his version of events, especially in light of the evidence Revolut has shared. For example, I can’t see reference to the individuals due to send Mr A funds, or any verification steps taken by Mr A. The evidence also fails to present a clear timeline that corresponds to the account activity Revolut reviewed. So overall I haven’t seen anything to support Mr A’s testimony that he was not in control of this crypto trading and the funds that entered his account were legitimate. Mr A has also asked for funds that were withheld from upon closure to be returned to him. Mr A has been unable to show he was entitled to the funds that entered his account. In line with its legal duties Revolut has returned the funds to sender. Given the evidence I’ve seen, I consider this appropriate action. So I won’t be directing Revolut to return the account balance to Mr A. I appreciate the closure of the account has had an adverse impact on Mr A – he has referred to the stress, and hardship caused. I don’t underestimate the challenges Mr A has faced. But I find Revolut’s actions to be fair and appropriate in the circumstances. I know this will not be the outcome Mr A was hoping for, and he will be disappointed with the decision I’ve reached. But I hope my decision provides some clarity around why I won’t be asking Revolut to take any further action in relation to its decision to review and close the account. 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 Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 20 April 2026. Chandni Green Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --