Three payments were aimed at it. 400,000 + 300,000 + 250,000. Exactly the money that had just moved in.
It began with a phone call
In early 2018 a caller told a couple in the UK that he worked for a financial regulator, together with a crime agency.
The story: your money is in danger. Move it to a "safe account".
The key idea. In this kind of scam, you send the money yourself. Experts call it an authorised push payment scam. You push the payment. You authorise it. Nobody hacks you.
She walked in and sent it herself
Mrs Philipp went into a Barclays branch twice. On 10 March 2018 she sent £400,000 to an account in the United Arab Emirates . On 13 March she sent £300,000 to another.
Total: £700,000. The money came from a £950,000 transfer into her account on 5 March.
Before each payment Barclays phoned her. She said yes both times. A "yes" proves she wants to send. It does not prove who told her to.
A real officer had already warned them
On 5 March, the same day £950,000 moved, a police officer visited. She said the couple were being defrauded.
The couple had been persuaded not to cooperate. Two payments later, on 16 March, police tipped off Barclays. The bank froze the account at once.
That was 3 days after the second payment.
The money was gone in 8 days. Recall began on day 87.
Source: UK Supreme Court judgment, [2023] UKSC 25, paras 12 to 15, 116. Days counted from 5 March 2018. The axis skips days 23 to 86 as marked. Recall date is "about 31 May".
The stop button worked once
Source: [2023] UKSC 25, paras 12 and 14. Shares are our arithmetic.
Three courts, three answers
Sources: [2023] UKSC 25; Court of Appeal ruling [2022] EWCA Civ 318 (14 March 2022); High Court [2021] EWHC 10 (Comm).
1,950 days from the first payment to the final ruling. 65 days from her report to the bank's first recall attempt.
The court sent her "slow recall" claim to trial. We found no public result in the 40 months since.
Then Parliament acted. 13 days earlier.
A law passed on 29 June 2023. Since 7 October 2024, banks must refund many scam victims. Here is what the rule covers:
- Faster Payments (normal UK bank transfers)
- CHAPS (big same-day UK transfers)
- Up to £85,000 per claim
- International payments
- Card payments and cash
Sources: PSR information sheet; Financial Ombudsman Service; Supreme Court press summary.
Today, the same transfer pays £0
Sources: [2023] UKSC 25; Financial Ombudsman Service (cap and scope).
The uncovered road is getting busier
Source: UK Finance annual fraud reports, as reported by Which? and LBC. 2025 split not found.
Six court cases. No final win for a victim.
Sources: court judgments and law-firm notes; list in Sources & method. Our count of the cases we found. England and Wales only.
It happened again this year
21 July 2026. The Court of Appeal threw out a claim by two victims who lost £160,000. They had sued the firm that held the scammer's account. The court left one back door open.
Early 2026. The Financial Ombudsman made Santander refund £163,225 to a customer who lost £331,550. The customer had been coached on what to tell the bank.
Ombudsman route: some money back. Court route: still nothing.
What this changes
The bank won in law. The victims lost £700,000. For this kind of payment, the loss still sits with the victim.
If someone "official" tells you to move money, stop. Hang up. Call your bank on a number you find yourself.
If you already sent it, tell your bank that hour. Here, the first recall came 65 days after she spoke up.
Before you send money abroad, ask your bank one thing: if this is a scam, do I get a refund?
Sources & method
- Philipp v Barclays Bank UK PLC [2023] UKSC 25, 12 July 2023, and the press summary.
- PSR scam reimbursement dashboard, updated 30 July 2026: £316m refunded, 88% of in-scope losses, 7 Oct 2024 to 31 Mar 2026.
- UK Finance Annual Fraud Report 2026, 15 June 2026.
- PSR information sheet and Financial Ombudsman Service: cap and scope.
- Moorwand v Hamblin [2026] EWCA Civ 942, 21 July 2026.
- Ombudsman decision DRN-6141024.
- Other cases: CCP v Santander, Larsson v Revolut, Terna v Revolut and Barclay-Ross v Starling via RPC.
- Barclays 2025 profit, £9.1bn: RTE. Our own arithmetic: 1,950 days, 74% and 26%.
Photos: Wikimedia Commons, credited under each photo. Legal status: the Supreme Court ruled in a civil case. The court treated the scam as the setting. We found no conviction of any scammer. Nobody is named but the case title. Not legal advice. Not found: the recall claim's result, the UAE banks' names, any fine on Barclays.
A bank, a phone call, and £950,000
This board tells one case from start to end. Follow the tour, or drag around. Each card makes one point.
The case: Philipp v Barclays, decided by the UK Supreme Court on 12 July 2023.
The strangest fact comes first
Three payments were aimed at one pile of money. 400,000 plus 300,000 plus 250,000 is exactly 950,000. That was every pound that had just moved into one account.
It began with a phone call
The caller claimed to work for a regulator. He said the couple's money was in danger and needed a "safe account". In this scam, the victim sends the money herself.
She sent it herself, and the bank's check passed
Mrs Philipp walked into a Barclays branch twice and sent £400,000, then £300,000. Before each payment the bank phoned her and she said yes. A yes checks she wants to send. It cannot check who told her to.
A real officer had already warned them
Police visited on 5 March and said the couple were being defrauded. The couple had been persuaded not to cooperate. Police tipped off Barclays on 16 March, three days after the second payment.
Eight days to lose it. Eighty-seven to try to get it back.
The money left on days 5 and 8. The couple saw the fraud on day 21 and told the bank on day 22. The first recall attempt came about day 87, which is 65 days after she spoke up.
The stop button worked once
On 19 March a third payment of £250,000 was blocked. The couple gave a false reason to get it through. It stayed blocked, and that saved 26% of the money.
Three courts, three answers
The High Court backed Barclays. The Court of Appeal backed Mrs Philipp. The Supreme Court, all five judges, backed Barclays: a bank must carry out a clear order from its own customer. Her second claim, that the bank was slow to recall the money, went to trial. We found no result.
Then Parliament acted, 13 days earlier
A new law passed on 29 June 2023. Since 7 October 2024 banks must refund many scam victims, up to £85,000. It covers normal UK transfers. It leaves out international payments.
Today, the same transfer pays £0
The couple lost £700,000 to accounts in the UAE. A domestic claim today tops out at £85,000. An international one like theirs is not covered at all. The court case closed one door, and the new law left this one shut.
The uncovered road is getting busier
International payments were 6% of scam losses in 2023 and 11% in 2024. That is £25.9 million, then £49.9 million. We cannot say the new rules caused the shift.
Six court cases, no final win for a victim
We found six UK court claims by scam victims since the Philipp ruling. Four failed in whole or part. Two ended in a settlement or a dropped case, on terms we could not find.
It happened again this year
On 21 July 2026 the Court of Appeal threw out another victims' claim. The Ombudsman did order Santander to refund £163,225 in a separate case. One route pays a share. The other still pays nothing.
What this changes
The bank won in law, and the victims lost £700,000. If someone official tells you to move money, hang up and call your bank back yourself. And tell your bank the hour you know.