A group claiming responsibility for the Revolut customer-data exposure has demanded approximately $3 million in Monero, threatening to sell the information to other criminal organizations if payment is not made.
The group, calling itself “iamnotavillain,” requested 6,000 XMR and published a 24-hour countdown, according to CoinDesk’s report.
At least 680 accounts were reportedly affected. Exposed records may include passports, driving licences, know-your-customer photographs, contact information and financial transaction histories.
The group claims it used blockchain analysis to identify Revolut customers with significant cryptocurrency holdings. If accurate, the stolen identity information could connect named individuals and physical addresses with valuable digital-asset activity.
The original exposure did not result from malware entering Revolut’s internal network. Fraudulent requests sent from an address associated with a government-agency domain reportedly passed the company’s authorization checks.
Revolut said its systems were not compromised and customer funds remained safe. The company blocked the requesting address and notified the relevant agency, law enforcement, regulators and data-protection authorities.
The criminal group reportedly provided a recording appearing to show customer records. Its claims and the completeness of the material have not been independently established.
TOKEN RECON ASSESSMENT
The ransom demand converts a privacy incident into a direct physical and financial security threat.
A leaked transaction history can expose more than past activity. It may help criminals estimate wealth, identify recurring counterparties and connect additional wallets with a real person.
Affected users should treat unsolicited calls, wallet-support messages and identity-verification requests as hostile. Watch for SIM-swap attempts, targeted phishing and efforts to impersonate Revolut or law enforcement.
Token Recon is also watching whether any data is publicly released, whether the Monero address receives payment and whether regulators find that Revolut’s government-request verification process was inadequate.
