The £700,000 "safe account" scam that reached the Supreme Court
In 2018 a couple lost £700,000 to authorised push payment (APP) fraud. Their case went all the way to the UK Supreme Court. The judgment is public, so we know in detail how the scam worked, and why the bank wasn't held liable for the transfers.
Last checked 7 November 2026
What happened?
In February 2018 the husband got a call from a man who said he worked for the Financial Conduct Authority. He said he was working together with the National Crime Agency. 1
The caller said he was investigating fraud at the couple's bank and at their investment firm. Over a series of calls he persuaded them their money had to be moved into "safe accounts". 1
The calls looked genuine. One showed the National Crime Agency's number on his phone, and another showed the mobile number of a real police officer. 1 This is called spoofing.
A genuine detective visited the couple to warn them it was a fraud. The scammer had already coached them not to cooperate, and they didn't. 1
In March 2018 they moved £950,000 from investments into the wife's current account. They then went into a branch twice and sent £400,000 and £300,000 to accounts in the United Arab Emirates. 1
Both times the bank rang to check, and she confirmed the payment. 1 The money was lost.
What did the court decide?
She argued the bank should have refused the payments. In July 2023 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it didn't have to. When a customer personally authorises a payment, the bank's basic duty is to carry it out promptly. 2
A separate claim, that the bank was too slow to try to recall the money afterwards, was allowed to continue. 2
The court said who should bear these losses is a question for regulators and Parliament. Section 72 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 provides for a mandatory reimbursement scheme. The court noted that it doesn't cover international payments, so it wouldn't have applied to this case. 2
The scheme that followed covers Faster Payments and CHAPS, not international payments. 3
How did the scam work?
- Authority. The caller named real organisations (FCA, NCA, police) and a real-sounding investigation. See bank and police impersonation scams.
- Fake proof. Spoofed caller ID made the calls look genuine.
- Isolation. The victims were told to trust nobody, not even a real officer at the door.
- Your own hands: The victims made the payments themselves, which is what "authorised" means. It isn't their fault. It's how the trick works.
What are the red flags?
- Anyone asking you to move money to a "safe account". No bank, FCA, NCA or police force will ever do this.
- A caller telling you to keep it secret or to ignore the police or your bank.
- A caller ID showing a real organisation's number. Numbers can be faked.
- Being given a cover story to tell bank staff.
What should you do?
- Hang up. Call your bank on the number on your card, ideally from a different phone, or call 159 if your bank uses it.
- If you've already paid, tell your bank as soon as you can and say you think it's APP fraud. Ask which reimbursement rules apply to your payment.
- Report it to Report Fraud (opens in a new tab) (England, Wales, Northern Ireland). In Scotland, call Police Scotland on 101.
- Full steps: APP fraud: the steps.
Sources (accessed 7 Nov 2026)
- Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc [2023] UKSC 25, judgment paras 10–12. https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2022_0075_judgment_834bdd1988.pdf (opens in a new tab)
- UK Supreme Court press summary, Philipp v Barclays. https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2022_0075_press_summary_4da7c0543c.pdf (opens in a new tab)
- Payment Systems Regulator, PS25/5 APP scams reimbursement consolidated policy statement (May 2025). https://www.psr.org.uk/media/rhelv4op/ps25-5-app-scams-reimbursement-consolidated-policy-statement-may-2025.pdf (opens in a new tab)