Revolut Crypto Trading Trusted Friend CIFAS Marker Removal

Our client was trading cryptocurrency informally with a trusted friend, exchanging fiat payments and crypto transfers between them outside a formal exchange environment. From the customer's point of view, this was a straightforward peer-to-peer arrangement with somebody they knew well.

From Revolut's point of view, however, the account showed a pattern of repeated incoming payments linked to crypto-related activity. That may have looked suspicious, but the complaint turned on whether the bank had evidence of dishonesty, or whether ordinary peer-to-peer trading between trusted contacts had simply been treated as inherently fraudulent.

The report confirmed a Misuse of Facility marker filed by Revolut Limited and referred to funds received into the account. In practical terms, the filing appears to have relied heavily on transaction pattern matching, especially repeated payments associated with the same contact.

What the report did not do was explain why that pattern proved fraud rather than reflecting the mechanics of informal peer-to-peer trading. It recorded suspicious-looking movement, but not evidence that the customer knew they were doing anything dishonest.

The complaint rebuilt the trading relationship around the known counterparty, the transaction sequence, and the reason the payments moved the way they did. That allowed the case to be framed as a genuine informal trading arrangement rather than as unexplained suspicious receiving.

That pushed the challenge back toward proof. Revolut was asked why trading with a trusted friend had been escalated into a fraud marker and where the evidence of dishonest misuse actually sat. The complaint focused on context, transaction purpose, and the difference between informal trading and fraud.

Revolut removed the marker within two weeks after reviewing the complaint and the supporting evidence of the trading relationship. Once the context behind the payments was fully explained, the filing appears to have become difficult to sustain.

The lesson is that informal crypto arrangements can look suspicious very quickly through a bank's systems, especially where there is no exchange wrapper around them. But a CIFAS marker still requires proof of dishonesty, not just an unusual payment pattern.