Liverpool Lou

Devon Lancashire does not agree.

Dead people don't need feeding.

Perhaps the tourist wasn't taking enough care of himself.

.

"...who know". The pilot who survived knows.

It wasn't a Falcon 10X, it was a Falcon 10.

Some readers here need to get a life worrying about "confused and sad" emojis.

Nonsense. 13,000kms?

All I know is that I was told by UOB that the only requirement to release funds upon death to a named beneficiary on a UOB account is that the beneficiary needs to present a copy of their Thai ID card and the death certificate. You may want to check with UOB directly for further clarification if you doubt this to be correct. I don't need to check with UOB, unless your account is a joint account the information they have given you is incorrect, UOB (as do you) may want to check the Thai administration/'probate' law, then your beneficiary doesn't risk disappointment after your demise. Banks are not permitted to circumvent 'probate' law as far as sole accounts are concerned.

I haven't advised anyone to do anything specific, either, I have just pointed out the law. I don't think that is unacceptable, if it is, report me.

Hear, hear!

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.