The last time I wrote an affectionate piece about banks was in August 2022 with the title “Addressing banks’ undying love for death certificates“.
It was my literary homage to marvelling at how methodical banks can be whenever they are required to decide on operational matters – in that instance, the importance of actually sighting a person’s death certificate as the only proof of death.
Not even being served with a sealed Grant of Probate (Probate), or sealed Grant of Letters of Administration (LA), would do, despite both only being issued after the High Court is satisfied that the person in question has died.
Clearly, in this context, banks demand higher standards of evidentiary proof than the High Court.
Four years on, I find myself encouraged yet again to pay another tribute and, as always, from my perspective as an estate lawyer.
So, as before, allow me to set the scene.
On Nov 14, 2024, I managed to obtain a LA for my clients to act as joint administrators of their late father’s estate from the Kuala Lumpur High Court. Attached to the LA were the deceased’s list of assets and liabilities, and the list of heirs.
Sometime in January this year, my clients reached out to me and intimated that they believed their late father might still have funds at one of the local banks but, regrettably, could not furnish any proof to support that belief.
Armed with instructions, I wrote to the bank – which, for argument’s sake, I shall refer to as the “Iron Bank” – seeking confirmation of my clients’ query while attaching a copy of the LA.
Iron Bank responded by stating that I was required to furnish the complete set of the LA together with the list of assets and liabilities, which must show that the deceased indeed had funds with them.
I believe Iron Bank was trying to lure me into a proverbial “chicken and egg” dilemma which created an unproductive and unrealistic causality issue – which of the two should come first?
The ingenuity of Iron Bank’s thinking was that it wanted my clients to first provide evidence that their late father had funds with them, even though the bank knew full well my clients could not do so – hence my reaching out to them in the first place.
Thankfully, I am mindful of Section 134, read together with Schedule 11, of the Financial Services Act 2013, which mandates that financial institutions disclose necessary information to the administrator or executor, as the case may be, relating to the deceased’s financial standing.
I am also mindful of Section 7(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, which reads in part as follows: “…orders [which include a LA or Probate] shall have the full force and effect and may be served or executed anywhere within Malaysia.”
Finally, it is worth noting that a LA or Probate is drafted by the High Court in consonance with Form 163, as provided for in the Rules of Court 2012. Nowhere in Form 163, the Rules of Court 2012, or other statutes governing estate matters, is it required that either the LA or Probate be attached to the list of assets and liabilities, or even the list of heirs, before either can have the full force of law.
To help readers visualise my explanation, I append below the very LA issued to my clients, with personal details redacted but with key parts highlighted.
It is evidently clear that the highlighted sections unequivocally show that the LA empowers the administrators to have full legal access to all the deceased’s assets within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Malaya. This position should and must be the same for Probates.
Anyhow, as Iron Bank is in Malaya – a legal definition – and not in the Free City of Braavos, the bank cannot cavalierly ignore the LA simply because the list of assets and liabilities, and the list of heirs, were absent.
To do so could be construed as obstructing justice and amounting to contempt of court.
To encourage compliance, I indicated to Iron Bank that if the matter was not resolved in a timely manner, more so after being politely tutored on the law, I would have no choice but to involve Bank Negara Malaysia.
Iron Bank capitulated. Not only did it confirm that the deceased did, in fact, have funds with them, it also released those funds into the estate account held at another bank and managed by the joint administrators.
Moving forward, my hope, as an extension of this essay, is simply this – if it can be legally established that an asset belongs to the deceased, then any person or institution, whether a government body or otherwise, being made aware of this fact should automatically accord due recognition to the representative named in the LA or Probate as the person having the absolute legal right to deal with that specific asset.
Without doubt, this is the purpose of the LA or Probate, which on its own is a complete sealed High Court order and not dependent on court-approved appendices attached to it as the totality of that legal authority.
Having now read this piece, some may correctly wonder how on earth this qualifies as a tribute to banks. My reply would simply be this – it is a tribute in much the same way banks require proof that someone has died.
Ultimately, I find absolute joy and happiness whenever I am able to help my clients overcome the absurdities and hardships placed before them by bureaucracy, which sometimes correlates vacuous procedure with normalcy.
As an epilogue, permit me to share one of my favourite Hadiths of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), which has profound relevance to the issue at hand, and whose values were constantly ingrained in me as a student pursuing a Diploma in Syariah Law and Practice at the International Islamic University Malaysia:
“Whoever puts the people into difficulties, Allah will put him into difficulties on the Day of Resurrection.” – Sahih al-Bukhari 7152
Regardless of one’s belief, the core teachings of that Hadith offer profound lessons for anyone in a position of authority.
In that same vein, my ultimate hope is that financial institutions will embrace genuine empathy, rather than operating as mindless machines driven by bureaucratic pedantry – a zealotry anchored not on law, but on pure caprice.
The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not represent that of Twentytwo13.
