Image © Adobe Images
Two years on, the UK's refunds for bank-transfer scams protect sterling payments at home, not money that crosses a border or changes currency.
Since 7 October 2024, UK banks and payment firms have had to refund most victims of authorised push payment (APP) fraud, where people are tricked into sending money by bank transfer themselves. For anyone who moves money between pounds and other currencies, the scheme's most important feature is where it stops.
Covered in Pounds, Not Beyond
The rules, set by the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR), apply to Faster Payments and CHAPS, the two systems that move sterling between accounts held in the UK. That splits a typical currency transfer in two. A payment in pounds to a UK account sits inside the scheme, even if it was meant for a currency provider and ended up with a fraudster. A payment sent abroad, in euros, dollars or any other currency, does not, so someone tricked into paying a fake overseas lawyer for a property purchase in Spain relies on their bank's own policy.
Within the scheme, victims can claim up to £85,000, with the cost split equally between the sending and receiving banks. Claims have to be made within 13 months of the last fraudulent payment, and firms may deduct an excess of up to £100.
An independent evaluation by Frontier Economics, published by the PSR in July, estimated that the policy has cut APP losses by about £73 million a year and prevented nearly 35,000 scams. Across all claims, the share reimbursed rose from 54% to 65%, and firms now repay 97% of the claims that fall within scope.
The industry's own figures show how large the problem remains. UK Finance's annual fraud report, published in June, recorded £576.4 million lost to APP fraud in 2025, up 19% on the year, across 248,070 cases. Banks returned £354.3 million of that, or 61%. Investment scams were the costliest category at £221.5 million.
Where a Gambling Deposit Sits
Gambling deposits fall on the domestic side of that line: sterling payments to UK businesses. At sites licensed by the Gambling Commission, a bank-transfer deposit usually runs through open banking: the customer picks their bank at the cashier, is passed to their own banking app and approves the payment there, with the operator named as the recipient.
Money moves back more slowly than it goes in. One industry guide that lists the licensed casinos accepting bank transfer deposits puts withdrawals to a bank account at anywhere from one to seven days, with the gap down to how long each operator takes to review a payout request before releasing it. That review, and the identity checks behind it, is part of what a licence requires.
A deposit made that way is an authorised payment. The customer chose the payee, saw its name and confirmed the amount. If the money is later lost on the games, nobody has been scammed and there is no claim to make. The PSR scheme excludes civil disputes with genuine businesses, and a losing session at a licensed site is not even a dispute.
Authorised Is Not the Same as Scammed
The distinction matters because regret is a common reason for asking a bank for money back. A player who has a complaint about a licensed operator takes it to the operator first and, if it is not resolved, to one of the dispute resolution services approved by the Gambling Commission. The bank's APP process is not one of those routes. Anyone worried about their own gambling can call the National Gambling Helpline, run by GamCare, on 0808 8020 133.
Even for scams, firms can turn down a claim if the customer ignored clear warnings or acted with gross negligence. Disputes over that test go to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
When the Casino Is the Scam
Unlicensed sites work differently. Some are offshore operators that simply sit outside UK regulation, but others are not gambling businesses at all. They follow the same script as the fake trading platforms described in recent reporting on rising investment fraud: small early withdrawals are paid out quickly to build trust, the opposite of a licensed cashier's checks, and when a larger sum is requested, new fees or verification charges appear before contact stops.
Money sent to a site like that by bank transfer may well fall within the APP rules, because the customer was deceived about who they were paying and why. A claim can still fail if the warning signs were obvious, so checking before paying counts for more than claiming afterwards.
The Gambling Commission's public register lists every business licensed to offer gambling to people in Great Britain, and a site missing from it should not be taking deposits from UK customers. Payment details that arrive by email or messaging app, rather than through a site's own cashier, are a second warning sign. The same trick of altered payment instructions has prompted warnings across the currency industry.
A New Home for the Rules
HM Treasury confirmed in April that the PSR will be abolished and its functions handed to the Financial Conduct Authority, and the bill to do that has been before Parliament since May.
Before that happens, the PSR plans to consult on how consistently banks apply the rules, after its evaluation found that the outcome of a claim can still depend on which bank a victim uses. That consultation is due before the end of the year, which means the first adjustment to the scheme could land while the PSR is still being wound into the FCA.
