OUR SWIFT payments


How about we just ask @AndreasK since I imagine we’ll get nowhere from this discussion.

I doubt they’d be willing to absorb the cost of every SWIFT transfer they make. They’d go bankrupt unless they stopped them entirely, so let’s see what good old Revolut legal team thinks.

Edit: I’ve given them a bell on Twitter and I do see what you’re trying to say, as opposed to being abrasive like I have done, do you think it’s perhaps because Revolut initiate the transfer under their own accounts, meaning that you don’t make the transfer and they tell the bank to take the amount from the total sent? Surely if they say the cost is included then they’re paying for the swift transfer fee as far as regulation is concerned - since you’re technically using a pooled account.


Actually @Recchan here is right. Same people that always bring up “law” and “compliance” but without any legal background. I strongly believe that these people they only want to misdirect others.


Indeed, but I’m not suggesting that Revolut should absorb the charges levied by their chosen intermediaries. If Revolut cannot prevent fees from being charged by its intermediary banks, then Revolut would need to advertise a charge for bank transfers in order to cover these costs. What Revolut can’t do is advertise that it doesn’t charge for bank transfers and then allow fees to be unlawfully deducted by intermediary banks from the amount transferred. Schedule 1 Paragraph 20 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 states that the following is an unfair commercial practice:

Describing a product as ‘gratis’, ‘free’, ‘without charge’ or similar if the consumer has to pay anything other than the unavoidable cost of responding to the commercial practice and collecting or paying for delivery of the item.

Furthermore Regulation 5(4)(g) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 prohibits a misleading indication of price.

You make a plausible suggestion, because that was previously the case two years ago. But Revolut have since changed their terms and conditions to state in paragraph 2.1 that “Revolut is the issuer of Electronic Money in your Revolut Electronic Money Account and performs the payment services related to your Revolut Electronic Money Account”. Therefore Revolut is the payment service provider referred to in the legislation.


@pepe, your unreasoned comment lacks credibility. I have quoted the precise sections of the legislation and linked to it, evidencing my assertions. Feel free to challenge the content of what I quote, but don’t attack me personally, particularly in such an unreasoned and non-evidenced manner.


This is only your assumption based on your own interpretation! Which literally means nothing and can only mislead others. Using a part of the law does not give you any credibility, simply because the law is so broad that one part of the law can “undo” another part of the same law.

Also, it’s funny to think that a fast growing company with all eyes on it, it does not comply with laws. Especially after getting their banking license.

p.s. Don’t take this as a personal attack.


Revolut can also not guarantee that there will be a fee though, so I’m unsure what you’d suggest, surely not a fee if it can be helped? Maybe a deposit that will pay a fee if needed?

The product is free and I’m sure you could argue the money is being delivered to the bank, which is charging a fee for this, and that it is unavoidable as Revolut themselves don’t set it, and there’s no guarantee that the receiving bank will set it.

This is the problem with law, interpretations are up to the Lawyer and the Judge, but only the Judge’s matters.

I can’t think of any immediate reason as to why this wouldn’t have been broken, but perhaps its because its not misleading to say Revolut themselves don’t charge fees for transfers, and the majority of transfers are likely to be done with local accounts. Could have lead their legal team to say that it isn’t misleading enough since the user base is small.

Yes but the point I’m trying to make is that Revolut actually owns the pooled accounts, they just allow you to spend out of them, right? Theoretically this money also has no protection via ring-fencing accounts either, as its Revolut’s money also.


SWIFT has the mechanism in place, it’s called an OUR transfer, and that’s how every other company does it. I don’t know the internals of the implementation though, but you pay X+E to get X delivered, instead of paying X to get X-e delivered.


Hopefully in the future then they’ll only have this method of transfer available, then I can start moving money over to my foreign accounts :frowning:


If Revolut states that outgoing bank transfers are free, then they need to be exactly that - free. Furthermore, Article 81(1) of PSD2 requires “any intermediaries of the payment service providers to transfer the full amount of the payment transaction and refrain from deducting charges from the amount transferred”. It is Revolut’s responsibility to ensure that its chosen intermediaries do not unlawfully deduct charges.

Revolut states that the product (outgoing bank transfers) is free, but in practice it is not always the case. If any charges are deducted, including by intermediaries, then Revolut is liable to resend the shortfall pursuant to Regulation 84(3)(a) of the Payment Services Regulations 2017, as quoted above.

The product is not free if intermediaries are deducting charges. If the full amount is delivered to the payee’s payment service provider, then fees can be lawfully borne by the payee pursuant to Regulation 84(2).

Both the directive and the corresponding UK regulations are very well written and unambiguous. There is no room for interpretation, only your failure to read or understand the text of the legislation that I have quoted.


@pepe - which specific wording in the legislation do you believe that I have interpreted incorrectly and why?


@NFH, is this regulation about SEPA payments, or it actually affects all international SWIFT payments initiated from the EU?

@AndreasK, may you explain us why Revolut considers it doesn’t need to comply with this directive?


That’s a very good question. I refer you to Regulation 63 of the Payment Services Regulations 2017. I had overlooked that your payment was in USD, which is obviously not an EEA currency. In such circumstances, if the intermediary bank and the payee bank are in the EEA, then the regulation does apply.

If you’re making a payment that falls outside the scope of the regulations, then Schedule 1 Paragraph 20 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 nevertheless applies, in that Revolut cannot describe the service as “free” or similar its chosen intermediary banks deduct charges.


You can tell, the partner sent us through Business Revolut several payments to China from Europe, more than 5 working days have passed, but transfers have not been received.


ouch. from previous experience, how long does it take? how much do the intermediaries cut off?


Hi @NFH,

Please keep in mind we’re an FCA entity.

Therefore it all comes to this: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/finalised-guidance/fca-approach-payment-services-electronic-money-2017.pdf - 8.146


@AndreasK is there any ETA on the implementation of OUR payments?


What our legal advisors here say now? :joy: :joy: