Liverpool Lou

You really don't see that hypocrisy? Some bar customers and owners are just as "self entitled", they don't own any of the road.

The space on the road outside the beer bar does not belong to, nor is generally allocated to the bar. Any road user can use the road just the same as a bar's equally "bxastard" customer.

"...a beneficiary named on an account prevents the need for any probate..." That is incorrect unless the account is a joint account, i.e. an account designated in two or more specific names. All assets of deceased persons, including cash in sole accounts, are subject to administration/'probate' then the bank can legally pay out the funds.

But that form does not negate the requirement for administration 'probate'. Banks are not courts.

Where has this "eight months" time scale come from?!

Not if the creditors were aware that the estate was undergoing the probate process, the completion of which would settle the outstanding debts.

That is not a specified time schedule for administration here. It could be for a complicated estate but it could also be a lot quicker than that.

Which is a far cry from my point. No, it was not. If you are suggesting that the process is done any other way than the legal way what else would you be suggesting than an illegal action?

The problem is not solved. You do not have the authority to give the bank that instruction to circumvent Thai 'probate' law and the bank does not have the authority to act on that instruction by itself circumventing 'probate' law. What would happen if someone else came along and made a legitimate claim on your estate after the bank had dished out the cash without 'probate'?

For the process being discussed here there are not different rules, there is only law and that some people/entities apparently don't follow that 'probate' law is beside the point.

I spent many years in the retail banking industry, you can look it up for yourself and if you find that I am wrong, then point it out, that is your prerogative.

Ok thanks but isn't this the same thing in practice? No, a sole account in the name of John Smith (with or without additional signatories) is not the same as a joint account designated in the names of John and Joan Smith.

I know that this is about bank accounts of deceased account holders in Thailand, that is what I have been posting about. Access to those funds is no more "difficult" here than in most other countries and no one wants to make the access difficult. The fact is that no one can just wander into a bank with a will and a death certificate and demand access to someone else's account, neither does the bank have authority to pay out funds from that account unilaterally, regardless of what letters/forms/authorities (from the deceased) were signed before the death. Of course, on occasion, access maybe granted, illegally, by some ignorant bank staff but they leave themselves open to the consequences of doing things the wrong way. Nothing that I have posted is incorrect but, if you believe that it is, please point it out, specifically, before accusing me of "showing how smart I am", to use your words. I really do not care how your family gets your fortune after your death, I (and a couple of others) are just showing the legal way it should be done in Thailand, as the OP wanted but if you want to advise others how you would get around the system (to show how smart you are) and potentially put the (fraudulent) recipients of your estate in the position of losing the money if third parties took legal action, then you carry on. Let other posters choose the way they want to do it.

No, that is not what I was saying, what you describe above is not a joint account it is a sole account (eg. John Smith) with funds held under that one name but with an additional signatory, either of whom can sign for transactions. A joint account has both names specified on the account, eg. John and Joan Smith and funds are held under both names with equal access allowed to either name.

Individual trusts are not recognised in Thailand.

All those posters who are not concerned about the legal aspects of passing on their fortunes to their intended beneficiaries should bear in mind that if their wife can bypass the system and persuade the bank to go along with her by dishing out the cash without the authority to do so (only 'probate'/administration gives it that authority) then other third parties (who were not supposed to be beneficiaries) could also do that and get money that they intended to go to their wives. It's a two-way street.

The facility already exists in the form of a will. Banks cannot decide who gets the funds or whether a nominated beneficiary is legitimately entitled to the account proceeds, that's why administration has to be processed. Whether that process is illegally bypassed is a different matter.

To comply with the law the bank (also) has to have evidence of 'probate' from the administrator of the deceased estate. What does a death certificate do apart from confirm a death? Banks need probate and cannot decide, unilaterally, who is entitled to the account proceeds.

Banks should not, they do not have that authority, that is the point. If they release funds from a deceased person's account to the wrong person, they would be liable, as would whoever received those funds.

Legal is all one very loud poster here seems to care about. Accuracy is not a bad idea on such an important subject and, if push comes to shove on administering an estate, legality could be very important.

Its not valid in Thailand, It is, under certain circumstances. "Under what circumstances a foreigner is not required to make a separate last will and testament in Thailand? Foreigners are not required to make a separate last will in Thailand if they are residents in Thailand, own real estate, or are married to someone in Thailand who is a national". https://www.thaiembassy.com/property/foreigner-making-a-will-in-thailand

Your bank gave you incorrect information regarding transactions on your sole account after your death and you should ask them to put that in writing (they won't). No one can legally take funds from the account of a deceased person without a court appointing an administrator ('probate') and banks cannot carry out that process nor can they decide who is entitled to the estate's funds. Some may do it in their ignorance of the law, or arrogance, but they are leaving themselves open to legal action if the wrong people get the funds.

Banks have no input to the probate court's processes in the UK and once probate has been granted the banks cannot do anything to delay transactions on the deceased's account, unless there is evidence of something untoward going on that they are contesting through the legal system.

Coming from a Moderator I find that very rude. That's your issue, not his, for a comment that was not "very rude"!

I don't mean to be facetious but why is this illegal? The bank seems to have a whole process in place for this and it didn't seem like they were doing anythng special or unusual for us to have access to the other's account. We also have a joint savings account with SCB that has both of our names on the account's bank book, my Thai partner's in Thai and mine in English. With that account we actually have 3 bank books, the one I just mentioned and one each with only our individual names. Although I said 'spouse' in my first post we are a gay couple and only legally married in the US, if that makes any difference. He was referencing sole accounts being accessed by third parties, which is illegal without 'probate'/administration, not joint accounts that the surviving account holder does have access to.