Every reimbursement argument turns on one unglamorous fact: recovery is a race against a set of transfers that are designed to be faster than any complaint process. Understanding the shape of that race is the difference between calling your bank in ten minutes and calling it the next morning.
Stage one: the receiving account
The first account is almost never the fraudster's. It belongs to a mule — sometimes a recruited student, sometimes a person whose own details were stolen. It is chosen because it looks ordinary and because it will accept an unusual credit without triggering a review.
Stage two: the split
Within minutes the sum is broken into smaller amounts and pushed onward, frequently to several accounts at different institutions. Splitting is not about hiding the total. It is about staying below the thresholds that generate an alert.
Stage three: the conversion
The onward hops end in cash withdrawal, high-value goods, gift codes or crypto exchange. Each conversion strips one more link out of the chain that a bank could otherwise trace.
Why ninety minutes
- A freeze on the receiving account only helps while a balance is still sitting in it.
- Each additional hop adds another institution, another authorisation, another delay.
- Once value has been converted, the question stops being recovery and becomes reimbursement.
What this means for a reader
Call your bank the moment you doubt a payment, not once you are certain. Ask explicitly for the receiving account to be contacted and for a fraud case reference. Keep every message and screenshot: your complaint, and any later Ombudsman case, is built on that timeline.
The free routes remain the same and in this order: your bank, the Financial Ombudsman Service, Action Fraud, and the FCA consumer helpline on 0800 111 6768.
Firm warnings published each month
98 in this window · down 17 on the month before
- 2Apr
- 1May
- 2Jun
- 4Jul
- 53Aug
- 36Sept
Counted from the warning notices in our own archive. One notice can name several trading styles.
The wider record
Counts from our own archive, for context around this report. Not an estimate of fraud across the UK.
Clone firms as a share of our Warning List archive
Clone firms copy the name or details of a genuine authorised business.
- Clone of an authorised firm17(16%)
- Not recorded as a clone89(84%)
Contact details recorded against warned firms
One firm can appear in more than one row.
Website recorded76(35%)
Website recorded: 76 entriesPhone recorded39(18%)
Phone recorded: 39 entriesEmail recorded85(39%)
Email recorded: 85 entriesNo contact details held16(7%)
No contact details held: 16 entries
Open the data page to see how each figure is counted.
How this report was made
- Updated
- Not revised since publication
- Primary sources
- 2 sources
- Following this subject
- 0 readers
- Reader comments
- 0 comments
Checked against the published record
Financial Ombudsman Service
Published approach to authorised push payment complaintsAction Fraud
National reporting centre for fraud and cybercrime
Sourcing. Every claim is tied to a published record — a regulator's notice, a court or ombudsman decision, or a document we hold. We quote a headline and a short summary and link the original.
Right of reply. Firms and people we criticise are put on notice before publication and their response is carried in the piece.
Independence. No affiliate links, no sponsored placements and no referrals to solicitors or claims firms. The only routes we point to are free. Read the full method · first published 23/08/2026
Trust and sourcing
- Bylined
- Editor approved
- Not flagged for review
Legal review
Not required
No individual or firm is criticised, so no right of reply was required.
Source URLs behind this report
- Financial Ombudsman Service
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/
- Action Fraud
https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/
What changed in each update
First published 23 August 2026 at 06:00 · last updated 25 August 2026 at 17:43
Nothing has changed since first publication.
How we source and correct our reportingUpdates and change log
- First published
- Last updated
No changes have been made since first publication.
Sources for this report
- Financial Ombudsman Service Published approach to authorised push payment complaints
- Action Fraud National reporting centre for fraud and cybercrime
Sources for this report
Published approach to authorised push payment complaints
Financial Ombudsman Service
Read the original source
We link directly to the original source wherever possible. A source may update its own page after we publish; we show the date we last recorded or updated the citation.
Share a quote card
Generate a branded image of the key line from this report, with the link on it, to post or send on.
- Authorised push payment fraud
- Redress and rights
Related reporting
Sixty seconds: the anatomy of a bank impersonation call, line by line
We transcribed a real impersonation call reported to our tip line and annotated every sentence. Almost all of the persuasion happens in the first fifteen seconds — before the caller has asked for anything at all.
Mon 24 Aug
Reporting fraud: who to tell, in what order, and why the order matters
Your bank comes first because only it can attempt to freeze the receiving account. Action Fraud records the crime for policing purposes.
Fri 14 Aug
How the Financial Ombudsman Service works, and when you can use it
The Ombudsman is free, independent and decides cases on what is fair and reasonable. You complain to the firm first.
Thu 13 Aug
The reimbursement rules for APP fraud, in plain terms
Payment firms must assess most APP fraud claims within five business days and reimburse eligible customers. The rules set out narrow grounds for refusing.
Wed 12 Aug
What an FCA Warning List entry does, and does not, mean
The Warning List records firms the FCA believes are operating without authorisation, or copying an authorised firm. Absence from it proves nothing.
Tue 11 Aug
What authorised push payment fraud is, and how it differs from card fraud
An authorised push payment happens when you are tricked into sending money yourself. Because you pressed send, the protections are different from those on a card payment.
Thu 6 Aug
About the author
Priya Raghavan — Priya tracks the FCA Warning List, clone firms and unauthorised investment promotions, and writes the reference explainers.
Reader comments
0 published comments · moderated by the newsroom
House rules: comments are for readers' own experience and questions about the reporting. We remove spam, abuse and anything that names a private individual without cause. Comments containing links are held for an editor before they appear. We cannot tell you whether you have a claim, and we do not pass details to any solicitor, claims firm or representative.