Monzo Bank Ltd · DRN-6085644

The complaint Mr G complains that Monzo Bank Ltd (“Monzo”), have failed to refund money that he says he lost as part of a scam. What happened Mr G says that he fell for a series of crypto scams between 2021 and 2023. During this period he says he lost over £19,000 to a number of crypto coins which he says were scams. There were over 150 transactions and they were a mixture of card payments and transfers to crypto exchanges. Mr G raised a complaint with Monzo, as he believed that it should have stopped him from making the payments in question. One of our investigators looked into this matter and they decided, due to the size and pattern of the payments, that Monzo did not need to intervene. Mr G did not agree with these conclusions. So his complaint has been passed to me to issue 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. Having done so, I agree with the conclusions reached by the investigator for the following reasons. In broad terms, the starting position is that Monzo is expected to process payments and withdrawals that a customer authorises it to make, in accordance with the Payment Services Regulations and the terms and conditions of the customer’s account. But, taking into account relevant law, regulators’ rules and guidance, relevant codes of practice and what I consider to have been good industry practice at the time, I consider it fair and reasonable that Monzo should: • have been monitoring accounts and any payments made or received to counter various risks, including preventing fraud and scams; • have had systems in place to look out for unusual transactions or other signs that might indicate that its customers were at risk of fraud (among other things). This is particularly so, given the increase in sophisticated fraud and scams in recent years, which firms are generally more familiar with than the average customer;

-- 1 of 3 --

• in some circumstances, irrespective of the payment channel used, have taken additional steps, or made additional checks, or provided additional warnings, before processing a payment – (as in practice Monzo sometimes does including in relation to card payments); • have been mindful of – among other things – common scam scenarios, how the fraudulent practices are evolving (including for example the common use of multi- stage fraud by scammers, including the use of payments to cryptocurrency accounts as a step to defraud consumers) and the different risks these can present to consumers, when deciding whether to intervene. Looking at the payments made they were not in isolation large enough, and the pattern of spending was not sufficiently indicative of a scam, to be considered unusual or sufficiently out of character, to have prompted an intervention from Monzo. They took place over a period of two years and the payments were for the most part small. Also, as there were so many payments that went unchallenged by Mr G, it had the effect of making the payments to the crypto firms look typical for Mr G’s account. So, having considered the payments Mr G made, I’m not persuaded there was anything that ought reasonably to have triggered Monzo’s fraud monitoring systems, or that would have indicated he was in the process of being scammed. I therefore do not consider there to have been any obligation on Monzo to have intervened for the above payments. Even if Monzo intervened, and I don’t think that it needed to, all it would have found out is that Mr G was purchasing crypto coins on advice from social media and he was holding the coins - rather than sending crypto to a scammer. It would not have been able to categorically point out whether each individual crypto project was a scam or legitimate. All it could have realistically done is say that investing in crypto was risky and the potential for a coin to go from a high value to zero, was high. But Mr G should realistically have known this as he had invested in a large amount of crypto coins which did just that. And yet he continued to invest in new projects despite this. So I don’t think an intervention would have stopped Mr G even had one been merited. In any event, I don’t think that I have been provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the loss that Mr G says he suffered was as the result of a scam rather than just a large number of bad investments in crypto projects. To refund the amount that Mr G says he lost he would need to demonstrate that the payments were part of an actual scam and whilst he has shown that a number of the crypto coins he purchased had low liquidity or were possibly fake, this doesn’t mean that they were all part of a scam. So given all of this, I am unable to direct Monzo to refund the transactions in question. I’ve also thought about whether Monzo did enough to attempt to recover the money Mr G lost. In this instance, Monzo were not part of the Contingent Reimbursement Model (CRM) but has agreed to act in line with it. But as the payments were to an account in Mr G’s own name or were card payments, the CRM does not apply. In relation to the debit card payments, they were a means to send funds from Mr G’s Monzo account to the crypto exchanges. And this is what happened. So there would be no grounds to challenge the payments that he made to the Crypto exchange, under a charge back claim. I appreciate this will likely come as a disappointment to Mr G, and I’m sorry to hear he may’ve been the victim of a scam. However, I’m not persuaded that Monzo can fairly or reasonably be held liable for his losses in these circumstances.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision My final decision is that do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Charlie Newton Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --