I really doubt it is even in the video you link to they say it is pretty much only useful for people of interest. Plus I don't think Revolut send codes via SMS. They have it in the app. I tried adding a card to Google Pay recently and could not get it to send via SMS.
Revolut - Fraudulent Transactions
- Thread starter Kitty8
- Start date
I know one that got the money back as it came up yesterday and he said it cost him more in time arguing with them than it was worth. But it was under €100. Not sure about the others. But none use revolut anymore except for small stuff.
Its a pity it has such issues as it is handy for passing money over without hassle for small things.
I suspect many more get caught out, but don't argue or go public.
Dr Strangelove
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,207
Fraud is run by organised crime groups on an industrial scale on other continents. There are literally call centres with IT departments.
People should bear this in mind when thinking about their own vulnerability and likelihood of fraudsters being tracked down.
People should bear this in mind when thinking about their own vulnerability and likelihood of fraudsters being tracked down.
I came across the following passage in the EU payment services directive. It references that the maximum someone would have to pay towards being a victim of fraud is 50eur, or 0 where they had no knowledge etc. provided that they were not grossly negligent. Obviously Revolut and the likes are dissatisfactory with these events and unfortunately only a complaint to the ombudsman gets them to pay up after their systems or teams don't talk to each other and refuse, refuse, refuse to refund their customers and one should take extra precautions to avoid getting into that mess. But I was wondering if the below applies in the above case of fraudulent transactions or where a phone is pickpocketed. The ombudsman say they don't give advice and they referred me to the CCPC, however the CCPC are not even acknowledging my emails (my question to them was specifically on the latter type of fraud.) Anybody any ideas on this or who might advise?
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015L2366
(70)
In order to reduce the risks and consequences of unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions, the payment service user should inform the payment service provider as soon as possible about any contestations concerning allegedly unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions, provided that the payment service provider has fulfilled its information obligations under this Directive. If the notification deadline is met by the payment service user, the payment service user should be able to pursue those claims subject to national limitation periods. This Directive should not affect other claims between payment service users and payment service providers.
(71)
In the case of an unauthorised payment transaction, the payment service provider should immediately refund the amount of that transaction to the payer. However, where there is a high suspicion of an unauthorised transaction resulting from fraudulent behaviour by the payment service user and where that suspicion is based on objective grounds which are communicated to the relevant national authority, the payment service provider should be able to conduct, within a reasonable time, an investigation before refunding the payer. In order to protect the payer from any disadvantages, the credit value date of the refund should not be later than the date when the amount has been debited. In order to provide an incentive for the payment service user to notify, without undue delay, the payment service provider of any theft or loss of a payment instrument and thus to reduce the risk of unauthorised payment transactions, the user should be liable only for a very limited amount, unless the payment service user has acted fraudulently or with gross negligence. In that context, an amount of EUR 50 seems to be adequate in order to ensure a harmonised and high-level user protection within the Union. There should be no liability where the payer is not in a position to become aware of the loss, theft or misappropriation of the payment instrument. Moreover, once users have notified a payment service provider that their payment instrument may have been compromised, payment service users should not be required to cover any further losses stemming from unauthorised use of that instrument. This Directive should be without prejudice to payment service providers’ responsibility for technical security of their own products.
(72)
In order to assess possible negligence or gross negligence on the part of the payment service user, account should be taken of all of the circumstances. The evidence and degree of alleged negligence should generally be evaluated according to national law. However, while the concept of negligence implies a breach of a duty of care, gross negligence should mean more than mere negligence, involving conduct exhibiting a significant degree of carelessness; for example, keeping the credentials used to authorise a payment transaction beside the payment instrument in a format that is open and easily detectable by third parties. Contractual terms and conditions relating to the provision and use of a payment instrument, the effect of which would be to increase the burden of proof on the consumer or to reduce the burden of proof on the issuer should be considered to be null and void. Moreover, in specific situations and in particular where the payment instrument is not present at the point of sale, such as in the case of online payments, it is appropriate that the payment service provider be required to provide evidence of alleged negligence since the payer’s means to do so are very limited in such cases.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015L2366
(70)
In order to reduce the risks and consequences of unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions, the payment service user should inform the payment service provider as soon as possible about any contestations concerning allegedly unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions, provided that the payment service provider has fulfilled its information obligations under this Directive. If the notification deadline is met by the payment service user, the payment service user should be able to pursue those claims subject to national limitation periods. This Directive should not affect other claims between payment service users and payment service providers.
(71)
In the case of an unauthorised payment transaction, the payment service provider should immediately refund the amount of that transaction to the payer. However, where there is a high suspicion of an unauthorised transaction resulting from fraudulent behaviour by the payment service user and where that suspicion is based on objective grounds which are communicated to the relevant national authority, the payment service provider should be able to conduct, within a reasonable time, an investigation before refunding the payer. In order to protect the payer from any disadvantages, the credit value date of the refund should not be later than the date when the amount has been debited. In order to provide an incentive for the payment service user to notify, without undue delay, the payment service provider of any theft or loss of a payment instrument and thus to reduce the risk of unauthorised payment transactions, the user should be liable only for a very limited amount, unless the payment service user has acted fraudulently or with gross negligence. In that context, an amount of EUR 50 seems to be adequate in order to ensure a harmonised and high-level user protection within the Union. There should be no liability where the payer is not in a position to become aware of the loss, theft or misappropriation of the payment instrument. Moreover, once users have notified a payment service provider that their payment instrument may have been compromised, payment service users should not be required to cover any further losses stemming from unauthorised use of that instrument. This Directive should be without prejudice to payment service providers’ responsibility for technical security of their own products.
(72)
In order to assess possible negligence or gross negligence on the part of the payment service user, account should be taken of all of the circumstances. The evidence and degree of alleged negligence should generally be evaluated according to national law. However, while the concept of negligence implies a breach of a duty of care, gross negligence should mean more than mere negligence, involving conduct exhibiting a significant degree of carelessness; for example, keeping the credentials used to authorise a payment transaction beside the payment instrument in a format that is open and easily detectable by third parties. Contractual terms and conditions relating to the provision and use of a payment instrument, the effect of which would be to increase the burden of proof on the consumer or to reduce the burden of proof on the issuer should be considered to be null and void. Moreover, in specific situations and in particular where the payment instrument is not present at the point of sale, such as in the case of online payments, it is appropriate that the payment service provider be required to provide evidence of alleged negligence since the payer’s means to do so are very limited in such cases.
No i didn't have to enter a code to freeze, i just remembering tapping Yes/no
Update:
I reported it to the Guards, they took a Statement, but i don't think anything can be done from their end. I just wanted to report it. I had a call booked for 10.50 this morning with Revolut, but it never happened! Just wondering what next steps to take, i have tried again and again on the app today to see if someone can take my case seriously but to no avail. I might try the CCPC as mentioned. I read somewhere to follow up with Revolut in writing with all of my information, not sure if that will help, it's just shocking how they deal with customers. I might just contact The irish Independent as my sister-in-law sent me an article from the Irish independent this evening about a cyber security expert who had €5000 taken from Revolut all while he slept! same situation!
I reported it to the Guards, they took a Statement, but i don't think anything can be done from their end. I just wanted to report it. I had a call booked for 10.50 this morning with Revolut, but it never happened! Just wondering what next steps to take, i have tried again and again on the app today to see if someone can take my case seriously but to no avail. I might try the CCPC as mentioned. I read somewhere to follow up with Revolut in writing with all of my information, not sure if that will help, it's just shocking how they deal with customers. I might just contact The irish Independent as my sister-in-law sent me an article from the Irish independent this evening about a cyber security expert who had €5000 taken from Revolut all while he slept! same situation!
Get a final letter from Revolut, then submit complaint to the financial ombudsman. Revolut refunded me (a much smaller amount) months after the fraud only when the ombudsman contacted them, so not sure that will work, but you can try.
Gordon Gekko
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,671
It would be great if someone (like Conor Pope) would write a proper article about these scenarios. What we currently get is half the story, a bit of innuendo, and moaning about having to deal with a chatbot.
The biggest issue is finding out how the fraudsters obtained the card details. There is something that all of these victims have in common and that’s what needs to be ascertained. The fraudsters did not guess their card details.
- Have all of these victims fallen for an An Post or eFlow text scam?
- Have all of these victims ignored iPhone/Android software updates meaning that their devices aren’t secure?
- Have all of these people purchased goods or services from the same rogue business and provided their card details over the phone?
- In the UK, organised crime gangs put people working in the banks to facilitate crime; are there fraudsters working in Revolut or somewhere else that’s relevant in the transaction chain?
Someone needs to investigate this issue properly. These people’s Revolut card details have been added to Apple or Google Pay. The tooth fairy didn’t fly in their bedroom window and get the numbers and dates, which must be Revolut’s argument. Something has happened, some interim step that Conor Pope etc seem to routinely ignore in articles.
The biggest issue is finding out how the fraudsters obtained the card details. There is something that all of these victims have in common and that’s what needs to be ascertained. The fraudsters did not guess their card details.
- Have all of these victims fallen for an An Post or eFlow text scam?
- Have all of these victims ignored iPhone/Android software updates meaning that their devices aren’t secure?
- Have all of these people purchased goods or services from the same rogue business and provided their card details over the phone?
- In the UK, organised crime gangs put people working in the banks to facilitate crime; are there fraudsters working in Revolut or somewhere else that’s relevant in the transaction chain?
Someone needs to investigate this issue properly. These people’s Revolut card details have been added to Apple or Google Pay. The tooth fairy didn’t fly in their bedroom window and get the numbers and dates, which must be Revolut’s argument. Something has happened, some interim step that Conor Pope etc seem to routinely ignore in articles.
Last edited:
Good idea to contact The Irish Independent. There needs to be more publicity for these cases. Charlie Weston is the best contact. His email address (which is available online publicly) is cweston@independent.ie
As others have said the best action is to get a final response letter from Revolut in writing and then to go to the Ombudsman.
I an ideal world, if you could afford it, it would be good to get an IT security expert to look at your phone and see if they can decipher a cause.
It's just scary this can happen to a cyber security expert, not much hope for rest of us mere mortals so.
Regarding the prior case of the 5k that the so called "cyber security expert" lost - he almost certainly had his entire phone compromised - he admitted that this phone was doing other random things like constant reboots - cause was likely phishing or crypto wallet related. The Reddit thread on that persons issue has some interesting perspectives:
Instead of relying on, perhaps questionable, anecdotal reports maybe some systematic analysis of actual or potential security vulnerabilities with Revolut exists? I found this (from 2021 so maybe not completely up to date?) in case it's of any use? However, at a glance I'm not sure how independent it is ("Our focus is to analyze the security behind the magic of Revolut and face the challenges that come along." sounds like marketing BS):
It is not just anecdotal:
"Revolut had more fraud complaints in the second half of last year than any other U.K. bank, according to data seen by Bloomberg. . .
In nearly half of the cases against Revolut last year reviewed by the FOS, the ombudsman ordered the fintech to reimburse customer losses, according to data seen by Bloomberg"
Revolut faces more fraud claims than other UK banks: report
The fintech investigates each fraud claim independently of other cases, and takes such claims “incredibly seriously,” a spokesperson for the company said.
It is Revolut who should investigate these issues properly.
And it is the Regulators who should force them to do so.
I was referring to anecdotes about the technicalities of such incidents and how better to get a handle on those in order to understand why they're happening. I suspect that many are due to negligence on the part of users but maybe some are due to systemic security flaws with Revolut's tech?It is not just anecdotal:
"Revolut had more fraud complaints in the second half of last year than any other U.K. bank, according to data seen by Bloomberg. . .
In nearly half of the cases against Revolut last year reviewed by the FOS, the ombudsman ordered the fintech to reimburse customer losses, according to data seen by Bloomberg"
Revolut faces more fraud claims than other UK banks: report
The fintech investigates each fraud claim independently of other cases, and takes such claims “incredibly seriously,” a spokesperson for the company said.www.paymentsdive.com
Part of that is just because of how widely used it is. Most people I know use Revolut in some capacity regularly even if it is only for transferring money to friends/family. If you run a phising attempt trying to catch people out by saying their Revolut card/account has been compromised then you will catch more people than if you used another bank like BOI, AIB, PTSB, EBS, N26 etc. I imagine it is the same in the UK.It is not just anecdotal:
"Revolut had more fraud complaints in the second half of last year than any other U.K. bank, according to data seen by Bloomberg. . .
In nearly half of the cases against Revolut last year reviewed by the FOS, the ombudsman ordered the fintech to reimburse customer losses, according to data seen by Bloomberg"
Revolut faces more fraud claims than other UK banks: report
The fintech investigates each fraud claim independently of other cases, and takes such claims “incredibly seriously,” a spokesperson for the company said.
It is Revolut who should investigate these issues properly.
And it is the Regulators who should force them to do so.