There is no SWIFT transfer in the world with no fees, I guess 
. All cheaper options I am aware of are cheaper because they avoid SWIFT. That is the reason why they can be cheaper in the first place.
1 Like
Do you happen to know if the SWIFT fees are flat fees regardless of amount, or percentages, or a combination or a tiered fee structure?
Do I understand correctly that you transferred ZAR 1000 from your revolut account and that ZAR 900 arrived in the destination account?
These unknown charges make it a bit difficult to pay for business abroad, as you want to be sure the right amount arrives in the destination account.
Correct.
I also transferred ZAR 2000 and the fee was still ZAR 100. Havenât done any bigger, but really hoping it is a flat fee and doesnât step up at some higher value.
Ok, here we go. This is really insane. Revolut needs to change their routing asap, or I will need to move.
Sent 10 USD REVOLUT -> STANDARD CHARTERED Bangladesh. No charge
Sent 1000 USD REVOLUT -> STANDARD CHARTERED Bangladesh. No charge
Sent 10 USD REVOLUT -> Dutch Bangla Bank. No charge
Sent 250 USD REVOLUT -> Dutch Bangla Bank. 2 X 20 USD Charge
Sent 100 USD REVOLUT -> Dutch Bangla Bank. 2 X 20 USD Charge (40%!!!)
Sent 450 USD REVOLUT -> Dutch Bangla Bank. 2 X 20 USD Charge
Sent 350 USD REVOLUT -> City Bank Bangladesh: 2 X 20 USD Charge
How is this possible âŚ
4 Likes
Where to?
Some banks simply charged based on the wired amount.
Why Revolut donât make a possibility to put an intermediary bank?
Of course charges at my account!
The law is very clear on this. Article 81 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 on payment services in the internal market (PSD2) states:
Member States shall require the payment service provider(s) of the payer, the payment service provider(s) of the payee and 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.
However, the payee and the payment service provider may agree that the relevant payment service provider deduct its charges from the amount transferred before crediting it to the payee. In such a case, the full amount of the payment transaction and charges shall be separated in the information given to the payee.
If any charges other than those referred to in paragraph 2 are deducted from the amount transferred, the payment service provider of the payer shall ensure that the payee receives the full amount of the payment transaction initiated by the payer. Where the payment transaction is initiated by or through the payee, the payment service provider of the payee shall ensure that the full amount of the payment transaction is received by the payee.
EU directives are not law; they need to be enacted into national law in each EEA member state. Revolut is based in the United Kingdom. The above Article 81 is enacted into UK law under Regulation 84 of the Payment Services Regulations 2017, which states:
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the payment service providers of the payer and payee must ensure that the full amount of the payment transaction is transferred and that no charges are deducted from the amount transferred.
(2) The payee and its payment service provider may agree for the relevant payment service provider to deduct its charges from the amount transferred before crediting it to the payee provided that the full amount of the payment transaction and the amount of the charges are clearly stated in the information provided to the payee.
(3) If charges other than those provided for by paragraph (2) are deducted from the amount transferredâ
(a) in the case of a payment transaction initiated by the payer, the payerâs payment service provider must ensure that the payee receives the full amount of the payment transaction;
(b) in the case of a payment transaction initiated by the payee, the payeeâs payment service provider must ensure that the payee receives the full amount of the payment transaction.
It is clear that Revolut, as the payment service provider of the payer, âmust ensure that the full amount of the payment transaction is transferred and that no charges are deducted from the amount transferredâ. The only exception is if the payeeâs payment service provider charges the payee for receiving payments (very common for banks in some countries such as the UK and US when receiving international payments), but thatâs not what is happening here. It is Revolutâs responsibility to ensure that its intermediary banks (including its chosen bank Lloyds) do not deduct fees, in order to ensure Revolutâs compliance with the legislation. If fees are deducted, then there is a remedy under Regulation 84(3)(a) of the Payment Services Regulations 2017, requiring Revolut to âensure that the payee receives the full amount of the payment transactionâ. If an intermediary bank has deducted charges, then you should insist to Revolut that it complies with Regulation 84(3)(a) and resends any shortfall amount. If Revolutâs support people refuse to comply, then you should complain via Revolutâs formal complaint process, quoting the above legislation.
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 canât do is advertise that it doesnât charge for bank transfers and then allow fees to be unlawfully deducted by intermediary banks from the amount transferred.
7 Likes
I agree on this. Their are these small pitifull money transfer apps with a few hundred downloads and they are charging low fees of about 4-5 EUR to transfer anywhere in the world. âTransferGOâ recently becomes the first fintech to offer completely free transfers globally at interbank rate.
And here is Revolut - The biggest Fintech in Europe still trying to be free when it is not and makes this money transfer service absolutely unreliable. If it has to challenge the might of Transferwise which is also not free and launched itâs own Borderless account, Revolut has to get itâs fees transparent for money transfers.!
2 Likes
Good point. 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 âgratisâ, âfreeâ, âwithout chargeâ 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.
3 Likes