A year ago, Parfitt Cresswell helped expose how gangs were exploiting poor governance to forge wills, obtain grants of probate and steal estates from rightful beneficiaries. We wrote to the lord chancellor and called on the government to act urgently. It did – but the systemic failings haven’t been addressed.
Last year’s publicity surrounding the revelation that the Bona Vacantia list was being exploited by criminals prompted government action. The publication of the unclaimed estates list was suspended on the 7th July 2025 and the way it was being used was reviewed.
The list was then reinstated on the 12th January 2026, with less information disclosed. However, the weaknesses within the probate process, which allowed the fraud to succeed, have not been adequately addressed.
What has changed?
The Bona Vacantia list serves a legitimate purpose. Removing it permanently would have created its own problems and potentially prevented genuine beneficiaries from receiving their inheritance.
When the list was reinstated in January, the government said its review had found no evidence that it had been the source of fraud. That conclusion is difficult to reconcile with our own experience. However, the government accepted that restricting the information published was prudent. The list now provides the deceased’s name, date of death, area of death and Bona Vacantia division reference number. Details including the date and place of birth of the deceased are no longer published.
The government’s action reduces the amount of readily available information which could be used to construct a false claim. However, limiting the information available to a potential fraudster is not the same as preventing a fraudulent probate application from succeeding. The information now missing is not difficult to find, when the incentive is to steal a multi-million-pound estate with little risk of being caught or punished.
The list was never the whole problem
The publication of the Bona Vacantia list is not the only weakness in the system. Our biggest concern is the apparent ease with which a fabricated will, false executor details and an implausible estate valuation can pass through the probate process.
In the case in which we became involved, our firm had acted under a lasting power of attorney for a client whom we knew had not made, and did not intend to make, a will. Following their death, we discovered that a grant of probate had been issued on the basis of a purported will containing glaring inconsistencies.
Hundreds of thousands of pounds had already been removed. We secured an injunction, had the fraudulent grant revoked and prevented a property from being sold, but only because our previous relationship with the deceased enabled us to recognise that something was wrong. Without that, the fraud might never have been exposed. We discovered that the most basic checks had not been carried out. For example, a large house in an expensive part of the south east of England had been accepted as part of an estate valued below the inheritance tax threshold.
Reasonable checks could expose obvious fraud
Probate applications connected with estates appearing on the Bona Vacantia list should be automatically identified as higher risk and subjected to additional scrutiny.
These checks should not take long. They should include verifying the identity and address of the proposed executor, checking the identity and contact details of witnesses, and examining when and in what circumstances the will was made. Obvious inconsistencies should trigger further enquiries. A property in a high-value area should not be accepted as part of an estate declared below the inheritance tax threshold without a basic valuation check.
A national register of wills would also make it harder to produce a document after somebody’s death. Technology also has a role. AI could quickly cross-reference probate applications with the Bona Vacantia list and identify recurring names, addresses, witnesses and bank accounts. And financial institutions should have a clear route for escalating suspicious activity before estate funds are released.
Prevention is better than recovery
Once money has left an estate, recovery is difficult, expensive and uncertain. In our case, substantial legal action recovered more than 60% of the estate, but the beneficiaries still suffered a loss. Few families or law firms can take on litigation of this nature without knowing whether the assets or costs will ever be recovered.
There must also be clearer ownership of investigations when suspected probate fraud is reported. Victims should not find themselves passed between the Probate Registry, the police and action fraud while assets disappear.
The government’s action over the past year has reduced one risk, but it has not repaired the system. The next step must be to strengthen scrutiny at the point where a grant is sought, improve coordination between relevant bodies and ensure credible reports of fraud lead to prompt investigation.
About the author
Simon Steele-Williams is a solicitor and the head of dispute resolution at Parfitt Cresswell. He qualified as a solicitor in 1991 and has extensive experience in contentious probate and estate fraud.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of Today’s Wills and Probate.
