800.000 Baht account after I die - can the partner access the account

[Liverpool Lou]

11 hours ago, Liquorice said:

It's different in the case of an unmarried partner, who would be committing fraud by withdrawing funds until the law establishes who is entitled to an estate.

Being married to the deceased does not give permission to access the deceased's sole bank account after his death before the proper process has been completed neither does the law give wives immunity from fraudulent activities with the estate's assets.  Fraud is fraud.

[lopburi3]

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Being married to the deceased does not give permission to access the deceased's sole bank account after his death before the proper process has been completed neither does the law give wives immunity from fraudulent activities with the estate's assets.  Fraud is fraud.

But prosecution is much less likely as bank will likely not be out any money so no need to do so.  If probate does not provide these funds to wife is where legal measures would be most likely to happen.

[Liverpool Lou]

2 minutes ago, lopburi3 said:

10 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Being married to the deceased does not give permission to access the deceased's sole bank account after his death before the proper process has been completed neither does the law give wives immunity from fraudulent activities with the estate's assets.  Fraud is fraud.

But prosecution is much less likely as bank will likely not be out any money so no need to do so.

You're assuming that the bank and the beneficiary could be the only parties to such action.  If a third party's claim was successful, both the bank and the party who received the assets irregularly could be penalised

[lopburi3]

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You're assuming that the bank and the beneficiary could be the only parties to such action.  If a third party's claim was successful, both the bank and the party who received the assets irregularly could be penalised

Which is exactly why I said "If probate does not provide these funds to wife".

[Mike Lister]

I've removed exchanges totaling 6 posts, please stop it!

[Mike Lister]

I have provided a quote from a legal source stating what the current law is on this subject and also the variables involved. If posters cannot post links to sources that challenge the legal view or provide weight to their own point of view, eg banks, law firms or government, this thread appears to have reached a natural conclusion. I'll leave it open for a while longer, in case anyone has further supportive evidence they wish to provide, as long as the exchanges remain civil and constructive, failing those things it will be closed.

[scorecard]

On 1/25/2024 at 6:53 PM, JimGant said:

 

Oh my. My bank account for Immigration, thus single owner, has my wife as co-signator, meaning only my name is indicated as account owner, but her signature is visible thru UV light. As co-signator, she can have her own ATM card, and she can march into the bank with my passbook and withdraw as much as she likes. Upon my death, this power, like power of attorney, probably dies. But since no one in the bank would know I'm dead (why would they, since no one, including my wife, is required to tell them -- and the police certainly aren't going to collect my passbook from my wife), she could still functionally withdraw. Or she could go online, and do a transfer from my account to hers.

 

Illegal? Maybe -- but since she's the sole beneficiary in my Will of that bank account, and is the executor -- who's the aggrieved party to file a complaint? The only aggrieved parties are the slimy lawyers denied their exorbitant probate fees. And the bank manager's liability? Absolutely none, as she has no liability unless notified of the death, and then the obligation to freeze the account sets in. Yes, the lawyer mafia, greedy for probate fees, have gotten a lot of bank managers scared about releasing funds without a probate release, including, sadly, Amphur Wills, which in the old days were the poor man's escape from lawyer fees, in preparation and probate. Fortunately, my small town bank manager has told us, with a wink and a nod, to just come and collect the deceased's bank assets -- she apparently doesn't care too much for lawyers either.

 

No, this subject pops up on this forum frequently, including the chance that misinformed bank managers might even freeze joint accounts. My bank manager has said this is absolutely not the case, so I'll probably not clean that account out, should the wife die. But, maybe next year a new bank manager......

 

Hey, the high cost of probate, and the time consuming execution of it, certainly makes one look for workarounds. And if your Will has your wife/partner as sole beneficiary, and you have no liabilities -- why wouldn't you use the workaround I just described? Just who is going to press charges -- the lawyer mafia? That would be interesting, and ludicrous.

 

Sounds interesting.

There's actually a second signatory, however is the account set up so that only one signature is needed to withdraw funds?

[couchpotato]

44 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

Sounds interesting.

There's actually a second signatory, however is the account set up so that only one signature is needed to withdraw funds?

Yes 'either/or signature'. As stated above the book has one name printed on the front page (your's), and the other signatory is on the back page under your own signature. I personally don't need the 800k type of account, but friends of mine have/are doing it this way. They are with Bangkok Bank.

[Mike Lister]

There's some confusion in these pages about account types and structures.

 

Sole Account - opened, owned and operated by one person

Sole Account w/second signatory - opened and owned by one person, in one persons name but a second signature is added later and appears under blue light on the signatures page. That second signatory can withdraw funds but cannot change the account in any way. No rights of survivorship, name on the passbook refers to XX.

Joint Account - opened, owned and operated by two people jointly, they both bear equal responsibility for the account and both are required to change the operation of the account. There is a single account opening application. Rights of survivorship are not guaranteed. Names on the passbook refer to XX AND YY.

Either/Or Account - opened jointly, but owned and operated by two people, individually and separately. Ownership of the account is with whoever holds the book. There are two, individual account opening forms. Both parties are required to close the account. Rights of survivorship are assured. Names on the passbook refer to XX OR YY.

[Mike Lister]

3 hours ago, couchpotato said:

Yes 'either/or signature'. As stated above the book has one name printed on the front page (your's), and the other signatory is on the back page under your own signature. I personally don't need the 800k type of account, but friends of mine have/are doing it this way. They are with Bangkok Bank.

What you describe in NOT an either/or account., it is a sole account with a second signatory.

[Andrew Dwyer]

4 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

There's some confusion in these pages about account types and structures.

 

Sole Account - opened, owned and operated by one person

Sole Account w/second signatory - opened and owned by one person, in one persons name but a second signature is added later and appears under blue light on the signatures page. That second signatory can withdraw funds but cannot change the account in any way. No rights of survivorship, name on the passbook refers to XX.

Joint Account - opened, owned and operated by two people jointly, they both bear equal responsibility for the account and both are required to change the operation of the account. There is a single account opening application. Rights of survivorship are not guaranteed. Names on the passbook refer to XX AND YY.

Either/Or Account - opened jointly, but owned and operated by two people, individually and separately. Ownership of the account is with whoever holds the book. There are two, individual account opening forms. Both parties are required to close the account. Rights of survivorship are assured. Names on the passbook refer to XX OR YY.

I would assume in the case of a foreigner using the account for holding the 800k ( retirement financial requirement ) immigration would accept the first two but not the last two accounts ??

[Mike Lister]

5 minutes ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

I would assume in the case of a foreigner using the account for holding the 800k ( retirement financial requirement ) immigration would accept the first two but not the last two accounts ??

Yes.

[JimGant]

19 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You're assuming that the bank and the beneficiary could be the only parties to such action.  If a third party's claim was successful, both the bank and the party who received the assets irregularly could be penalised

 

You think a mia noi's claim might be successful? " He say he luv me mak mak and all his money will be mine."

[zhounan]

Your lady is only waiting for that moment.

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, JimGant said:

You think a mia noi's claim might be successful?

I did not mention mia nois but, as you did, it could well be, as could any other party's claim; the court would have to decide that, that is why distribution of an estate without administration is illegal.