The Government’s quiet reinstatement of a public list of unclaimed estates has raised fresh questions about transparency, and whether a probe to probate fraud has addressed the real risks, according to leading probate genealogy firm Fraser and Fraser.
The list – known as Bona Vacantia – was taken offline in July 2025 after a joint Fraser and Fraser and BBC investigation uncovered evidence that criminal gangs were using the list to steal deceased individuals’ estates, using forged wills to steal thousands of pounds from their next of kin and the Bona Vacantia department.
After a six month hiatus, the list reappeared online this week, the Government Legal Department (GLD) said a subsequent review had found “no evidence” that the Bona Vacantia list itself had been the source of fraud.
The reinstated list however contains significantly less information than before, limited to basic details such as name, date of death, area of death and a reference number. Information that previously helped families and the public verify potential entitlements has been removed.
Neil Fraser, partner at Fraser and Fraser, said:
“The government asserts there is ‘no evidence’ that the Bona Vacantia list has been the source of fraud, yet they have simultaneously cut back the detail published.
“It reads like an admission of vulnerability without conceding a breach of trust. After all, there are dozens of heirs who have lost out, and they currently have no one to claim against.
“The new list is reverting to a minimal format like what was published in 2010, removing data such as maiden names and places of birth.
“For legitimate probate genealogists, this won’t be a huge obstacle, but it does make it far harder for the public. It may also be problematic to conduct verifications or family checks. The result? More obscurity for honest users, while doing little to deter organised fraud.”
The firm also warns that focusing on the format of the list risks overlooking deeper weaknesses in the probate system. Applications still rely heavily on declarations and paperwork rather than robust upfront verification, particularly where estates are handled without professional oversight.
Overseas elements, which are common and legitimate in probate, can also be exploited if checks are weak.
Neil Fraser added:
“This looks like an attempt to fix a spreadsheet rather than fix the system. Fraud does not happen because the public can see a few extra data points. It happens because verification is
light-touch and assets can move before and checks are made.”
Fraser and Fraser says the only practical outcome of the suspension and reduced data is that hundreds of people may have remained unaware of estates to which they could be entitled, with no clear evidence that the risk of fraud has been materially reduced.
Neil concluded:
“We remain willing to collaborate with the GLD, HMCTS, or any other relevant authority to strengthen estate protections.
“Our shared goal should be the creation of a transparent, verifiable, and fraud-resistant system – one that protects both beneficiaries and public confidence in the rule of law.”
This article was submitted by Fraser and Fraser as part of an advertising agreement with Today’s Wills and Probate. The views expressed in this article are those of the submitter and not those of Today’s Wills and Probate.
