The recent High Court ruling in the UK against Moorwand Ltd marks a watershed moment in the fight against authorised push payment (APP) fraud in the UK. The judgment held the FCA-regulated e-money institution liable for failing to prevent fraudulent transfers, reinforcing the application of the Quincecare duty to modern payment service providers.
The Quinscare Duty
The ‘Quincecare duty‘ requires that where a bank has reasonable grounds to believe that a payment instruction given by an agent of its customer is an attempt to defraud the customer, it must make inquiries to verify the customer authorisation.
Moorwand’s long-standing involvement in high-risk sectors-including binary options fraud and illegal gambling-provided the backdrop for this case, highlighting systemic compliance failures under its former leadership. This legal milestone not only delivers justice for individual victims but also sets a powerful precedent, signalling heightened accountability for all payment facilitators operating in the UK’s fintech landscape.
Case Overview
The High Court’s ruling in Hamblin & Anor v Moorwand Ltd & Anor[2025] EWHC 817 (Ch) marks a pivotal development in addressing authorised push payment (APP) fraud liability for payment service providers (PSPs). The court held Moorwand, an FCA-regulated e-money institution, liable for breaching the Quincecare duty by failing to prevent fraudulent transfers from a client account.
Key Legal Findings
- Breach of the Quincecare Duty:
- The court ruled Moorwand had “reasonable grounds” to suspect fraud when executing payments from RND Global Ltd’s account but failed to verify the legitimacy of instructions. This breached its duty of care to act in the customer’s best interest.
- The decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s 2023 Philipp v Barclays clarification that the Quincecare duty applies when PSPs are “put on inquiry” about potential fraud.
- Derivative Action and Liability:
- Victims (Mr. and Mrs. Hamblin) successfully pursued a derivative claim on behalf of RND, which was in administration. The court ordered Moorwand to restore £160,000 to RND’s account, enabling compensation for victims via the administration process.
- Exclusion Clause Invalidity:
- Moorwand’s attempt to rely on contractual terms to avoid liability failed. The court deemed exclusion clauses unenforceable when they conflict with core obligations under the Payment Services Regulations 2009 (PSRs).
Moorwand’s Regulatory and Operational Context
- History of High-Risk Facilitation:
Moorwand, under CEOs Robert Courtneidge (2018–2020) and Alain Bazille (Companies House), faced longstanding allegations of enabling fraud in binary options, illegal gambling, and casino sectors. While not directly charged, its partnerships with high-risk entities and regulatory scrutiny (including FCA investigations) contextualize the ruling. - Moorwand has worked under various brands. These included UPayCard, which is at the center of the present proceedings. UPayCard was also the Moorwand brand used to facilitate fraud schemes and illegal casino and gambling activities. The case in the present court ruling took place in 2017 under the leadership of Alain Bazille. The plaintiffs are victims of a fraud scheme for which Moorwand processed payments from victims. If all victims who lost money via UPayCard or Moorwand were to file lawsuits, Moorwand would immediately become insolvent and be placed under supervision by the FCA.
- Prior Legal Disputes:
A 2023 winding-up petition (Moorwand Ltd v K Wearables Ltd) revealed similar allegations of misrepresentation and poor compliance practices, further underscoring systemic issues.
Industry Implications
- Enhanced PSP Accountability:
The ruling reinforces that PSPs must proactively investigate suspicious transactions, even if initiated by authorised account holders. This extends Quincecare principles to modern payment ecosystems, including e-wallets. - Regulatory Enforcement:
The FCA’s ongoing scrutiny of Moorwand signals tighter oversight of e-money institutions linked to fraud-enabled activities.
Conclusion
The Hamblin ruling sets a critical precedent for APP fraud victims seeking redress against PSPs. For Moorwand, the decision exacerbates reputational and legal risks tied to its historical role in high-risk sectors. The case underscores the necessity for PSPs to balance commercial agility with rigorous fraud detection, particularly under evolving regulatory expectations.
