Revolut CIFAS Marker, Marker removed
The situation
D's Revolut account received a series of payments from contacts that Revolut flagged as suspicious. The account was frozen and closed, and a CIFAS Misuse of Facility marker was placed on D's record without prior notification. D discovered the marker when trying to open a bank account elsewhere and was declined.
Our approach
Our system identified this as a classic Misuse of Facility case where the key question was whether D had acted dishonestly. The complaint challenged Revolut on three grounds: (1) the standard of proof, Revolut had not demonstrated D knew the payments were suspicious, (2) data accuracy under UK GDPR Article 5(1)(d), the marker implied dishonesty where none existed, and (3) proportionality, a fraud marker was disproportionate to the circumstances.
Issuer response
Revolut reviewed the complaint and confirmed the marker had been removed within 3 days. They acknowledged that the evidence did not meet the CIFAS filing standard for demonstrating dishonesty.
Result
Marker removed within 3 days of sending the complaint. D was able to open bank accounts normally again within a week.
Key takeaway
Many Misuse of Facility markers are placed reactively when suspicious transactions are detected, without proper investigation into whether the account holder acted dishonestly. A structured complaint that challenges the standard of proof can resolve these quickly.
Specialist CIFAS marker removal firm
Your case is different. Our strategy is designed to reflect that.
Professionally drafted complaint documents built around your specific marker, issuer, and evidence. Not a template letter. A four-stage strategy that escalates until the marker is addressed.