Skip navigation

Supplementary guidance on intermeddling in estates of deceased persons January 2026

Introduction

  1. In the last 12 months’ the Attorney General has continued to receive a large number of self-reports from Jersey financial services businesses (“FSBs”) disclosing instances of apparent intermeddling which may have occurred in the estates of deceased persons with bank accounts or assets managed in Jersey.  These self-reports have therefore disclosed the potential commission of offences, contrary to Article 23 of the Probate (Jersey) Law 1998 (the “Law”).        
  2. Although the Attorney General has not decided to commence any prosecutions as a result of these self-reports, the frequency of these disclosures and their content justify issuing this Supplementary Guidance to the Guidance issued in July 2024 (the “2024 Guidance”).  All defined terms in the 2024 Guidance are adopted herein.  

Trends and outline

  1. Whilst the Attorney General recognises that by making self-reports, FSBs are acting responsibly, it is nonetheless of real concern that the facts common to each self-report demonstrate three trends:
    1. where banking services have been de-centralised and day-to-day account management has been outsourced to different departments often in other jurisdictions, a deceased person’s account in Jersey can be accessed and transactions processed in accordance with UK policies and procedures which may take no account of the requirements of Jersey probate; 
    2. non-Jersey and Jersey staff appear either not to receive adequate training on how to treat the accounts and assets of deceased persons in Jersey or have failed to understand training that has been provided; and   
    3. systems designed to flag that Jersey situs assets of a deceased person must be treated differently due to the requirements of Articles 19 and Article 23 of the Probate (Jersey) Law 1991 are either inadequate or not properly maintained and applied.   
  2. These issues have contributed to an increased risk of intermeddling occurring in the bank accounts of deceased persons in Jersey.  It would also appear that there remain significant omissions in ‘group’ policy within FSBs that operate in different jurisdictions and this has further contributed to the risk of intermeddling occurring across client structures sited in Jersey.   

Conclusion

  1. The Attorney General reminds FSBs of the observations of the Royal Court in Attorney General v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC, Jersey Branch [2018]JRC192 in particular, paragraph 21 of the Court’s sentencing remarks:

“Nonetheless, this is a case where a regulated entity, which not only should have known better but did know better, allowed its employees to breach the Probate Law.  That will have caused the Defendant embarrassment, and indeed appearing before this Court will likewise have caused embarrassment.  Nonetheless the conduct should additionally be marked with a significant fine.” 

  1. Where members of staff at FSBs who are responsible for executing transactions on behalf of deceased account holders lack sufficient awareness of the requirements imposed by the Law or, where appropriate systems and controls are not in place or are ineffective in ensuring compliance with the Law, this places FSBs and their employees at the risk of committing a serious criminal offence.
  2. It is hoped that this Supplementary Guidance is sufficient to ensure that FSBs are aware of their obligations strictly to adhere to the requirements of the Law in view of the potentially serious consequences for not doing so.       

Issued: 29 January 2026