191

About 12 months ago, I received a letter ostensibly from a company carrying out genealogical research for law firms. It said that they were dealing with the estate of someone who had left money to my late mother, who died about 20 years ago. They wanted me to authorise them to take action to transfer the bequest to me, while taking a percentage of the sum as commission. The letter did not state the size of the bequest, but noted that it would depend on their success or failure in processing other claims on the same estate.

The letter was accompanied with a professional-looking multi-page brochure, and the company had an extensive professional-looking website.

My thought was that, at the best this was a mix-up of names, but since the company was not asking for any personal or financial information about me or my late mother that they had not already stated in the letter, except for confirmation of my date and place of birth, I decided to go along with it and authorised them to proceed.

I heard nothing until a few days ago, when a letter arrived ostensibly from a different firm of solicitors, stating they were dealing with the person's estate (she had died without making a will), had used the genealogy research company to trace a more than 100 relatives of the deceased who were beneficiaries of the estate, and enclosing a cheque for my share of the total. Given the large number of claimants, I was a little surprised by the size of the cheque - close to a 5-figure sum.

This firm of solicitors also looks legitimate - they have a website, a high street address in the area where my mother used to live, etc. The cheque is apparently drawn from the company's named account with major UK bank, not an anonymous money transfer company.

The name and date of death appears genuine - a Google search found a report of her death (she was living in a care home, aged over 90) in the obituary column of a local newspaper.

All that seems fine, but there are a few "red flags" lurking in my mind:

  • The first letter contained absolutely no information about the deceased person, except her name, which was a very common one (Mary Smith) - probably the sort of name one would choose, if setting up a scam?

  • The story has changed from "someone left money to your mother, who is dead, and we want to pass it on to you" in the first letter, to "someone died without making a will, and you are one of their relatives" in the second.

  • The name itself did not "ring any bells" regarding friends of relatives of my mother who I knew of.

  • My mother had lived in this area for the whole of her life, and never mentioned any relatives she had lost touch with.

  • An email to the solicitor named in the second letter produced an immediate out-of-office reply, but no further response. I have not (yet) tried to contact them by other means - e.g. by phone or via their website.

Cash the cheque and celebrate my good luck, or call the police?

UPDATE 10 Nov 2018:

Curiouser and curiouser: Today I received a letter from someone in another part of the UK, headed "Dear Family" and purporting to explain the circumstances surrounding the end of Mary Smith's life.

To add to the mixed messages, it states that two of her relations have been "spent many months working hard" on the administration of the estate - no mention of the two legal firms who (ostensibly) sent the previous letters!

After a couple of pages of family history, the punchline is "we have decided to gift whatever sum we are entitled to, to [yet another private individual, who was involved in caring for her at the end of her life] and we invite you do to the same, by sending a personal cheque to [contact details] ...

Now that's the sort of scam I have heard about before!!

CactusCake
  • 3,463
  • 1
  • 16
  • 20
alephzero
  • 4,433
  • 3
  • 15
  • 16
  • 24
    As for the "more than 100 relatives" - that number may not be implausible, depending how far back the search had to go to find any relatives of the deceased, since my maternal grandmother was one of 11 sisters, and my maternal grandfather one of 12 brothers! – alephzero Nov 09 '18 at 13:08
  • 7
    cash the check and sit on it for a month or two. don't spend it right away, and you have no risk. – Aganju Nov 09 '18 at 13:13
  • 2
    Does the letter contains something like "I will discuss more details...this is an opportunity of a lifetime"? – SZCZERZO KŁY Nov 09 '18 at 13:26
  • 32
    If you get another letter stating they made a mistake and to return a portion of the money back to them, then you know it definitely is a scam. – pboss3010 Nov 09 '18 at 13:38
  • @SZCZERZOKŁY No. – alephzero Nov 09 '18 at 13:46
  • 2
    @Aganju Is no risk "guaranteed?" I would regard having to rearrange my finances, because some authority closed or suspended my existing accounts on suspicion of some irregularity, a significant risk in terms of time and hassle. Also, they currently do not know my bank account details (at least, they have not asked me for that information). If I cash their cheque, the can presumably trace where it has been cashed. – alephzero Nov 09 '18 at 13:49
  • 2
    I'd discuss this with your lawyer. Lawyers have far better contacts and resources for determining legitimacy. – Bob Baerker Nov 09 '18 at 13:52
  • 36
    @BobBaerker fair comment, but in the UK (unlike the US) most people (including myself) don't have a lawyer. I've got by just fine for nearly 70 years without needing one so far! Also, both letters ostensibly come from law firms already. – alephzero Nov 09 '18 at 13:54
  • 4
    Well, you have two choices. Cash the check and open yourself to possible legal exposure to a scam or ruin your perfect track record and have a lawyer verify that it's not a scam. The decision seems like a no brainer to me, of which I have definitely been accused of :->) – Bob Baerker Nov 09 '18 at 13:58
  • Scam but quite an elaborate one and the scammer probably is on this site. He(she) has learnt his(her) lessons and doing it diligently this time. – DumbCoder Nov 09 '18 at 14:13
  • 3
    Ask them to show you the genealogical trace. That's something you can verify independently. Are wills public information once they're submitted to a court? That's another thing to try to verify. – mkennedy Nov 09 '18 at 14:20
  • 3
    Just to be clear "left you money" and having died in testate (without a will) are not mutually exclusive. You may have claim to monies from the estate of a relative who died in testate and therefore have been "left" (in layman's terms) that money. One is simply a formal wording of the other – MD-Tech Nov 09 '18 at 14:24
  • 9
    @alephzero Maybe open a separate (savings) account with a different bank than your normal account(s) just for this cheque. Should it be frozen (which seems an unlikely event, even if the cheque is dodgy), it shouldn't affect your normal accounts. – TripeHound Nov 09 '18 at 14:32
  • 1
    @mkennedy According to the second letter, there is no will. Actually, I tried to trace the will after the first letter, but, unsurprisingly if it doesn't exist, I failed. Also, in the UK, if there is a straightforward will and the estate is relatively small, solicitors will often not go through the time and cost of proving the will and putting it in the public domain, but take the (small) risk of later complaints about its administration on their professional insurance. – alephzero Nov 09 '18 at 14:33
  • @alephzero oh, right. Very interesting problem you have there! – mkennedy Nov 09 '18 at 14:35
  • @MD-Tech I understand that, but as I interpreted the first letter, it said that money had been left specifically to my late mother, which implies the existence of a will (which was out of date, possibly because its author didn't know my mother had died). If this had been simply a search for living relatives who would be beneficiaries, why mention my mother (who died 19 years before Mary Smith) as a beneficiary at all? – alephzero Nov 09 '18 at 14:41
  • 42
    @alephzero in the US, most people also don't HAVE a lawyer. They just find one when they need one (exactly like you can in the UK), which is what you should do here – user73687 Nov 09 '18 at 16:01
  • 3
    "If this had been simply a search for living relatives who would be beneficiaries, why mention my mother (who died 19 years before Mary Smith) as a beneficiary at all?", because that's a common way that inheritance works. "X" has three kids "A", "B" and "C". Child "A" has 3 kids of their own, but dies before "X". When "X" dies without a will, "B" and "C" will each receive 1/3rd of the inheritance, and the 3 children of "A" will split the 1/3rd that would have gone to "A". In this scenario, you are likely equivalent to a child of "A". – longneck Nov 09 '18 at 16:51
  • 15
    @alephzero: I can assure you that having a lawyer is not the norm for most Americans, either. – jamesqf Nov 09 '18 at 17:28
  • 5
    Freedom isn't free. The Cylons didn't ask us what we wanted. Lyme disease didn't ask if you wanted to break your "never needed a doctor" record. The person engaging you in legal affairs (police, plaintiff, executor) didn't ask if you wanted to finish your life without a lawyer. Nobody wakes up and says "Fun idea, let's need a lawyer today!" It happens, deal. And while you're there, line up your own will. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Nov 09 '18 at 18:04
  • 2
    It may not be possible depending on your family history, exact relation to the deceased, and UK census policies, but have you tried tracing the genealogies yourself? It's a bit of a long shot (genealogy through census data is a bit of an adventure), but could possibly confirm that you truly are related. Speaking of which, do you have any other relatives who would also be beneficiaries if your mother was? Have they received similar notifications? – Arcanist Lupus Nov 09 '18 at 18:46
  • 1
    @ArcanistLupus I haven't tried tracing the genealogy, and from what I already know of my family tree the relationship must go back to my grandparents' siblings (of which there were many!) so that would involve a significant amount of work that I'm not personally interested in learning how to do. I suppose another option might be that my mother had a sister who was "the black sheep of the family" and whose existence was never ever mentioned by any family member, or something similar - but that doesn't seem likely. – alephzero Nov 09 '18 at 20:55
  • 3
    @jamesqf Well, that is not the impression one gets from sources like SE sites, where (from the point of view of a European) the standard advice regarding almost any problem in the US would seem to be "consider starting legal procedures." – alephzero Nov 09 '18 at 21:25
  • @Harper "line up your own will" - If I knew the precise date I was going to die, I would make damn sure that I died bankrupt. (And for medical reasons, which have nothing to do with this question, I already have a pretty good estimate of that date!) – alephzero Nov 09 '18 at 21:32
  • 11
    @alephzero you are mistaking the advice "You should talk to a lawyer [instead of random people on the internet]" with "you should start legal proceedings." – stannius Nov 09 '18 at 23:59
  • 5
    @alephzero: The impression is incorrect. What you have is a small number of people saying "talk to your lawyer", and a large number of people saying nothing. Naturally the ones saying something is what gets noticed & remembered, not the ones who say nothing. (FWIW the only lawyer I've spoken to in decades is my friends' son-in-law, and that only socially.) WRT the OP's question, heir-hunting is a recognized business in the US, and (as I discovered just now) is even a TV programme in the UK. (The URL is too long to post, just do a search for "heir hunter".) – jamesqf Nov 10 '18 at 02:59
  • I wonder how come nobody has asked for the websites, would you mind posting those "professional-looking" websites' URLs? – ray sn0w Nov 10 '18 at 06:30
  • 4
    It's great to finally see a is-this-a-scam question on this site without the answer being an obvious Duh!. It's also weird to think that you wouldn't have to worry so much about the money transfer biting back if it were done in Bitcoin; I mean, how often does Bitcoin seem like a simpler solution? – Nat Nov 10 '18 at 08:15
  • 3
    @Nat there are at least a couple of others. We should make a list on meta! – jcm Nov 10 '18 at 11:26
  • 2
    @raysn0w I have little doubt that they are the websites of two genuine, above-board, legal firms. If nothing else, they contain lots of information that could easily be independently verified. But whether those firms have had any involvement at all in the affair is not so clear, if you read to update to the question I posted today. (It would have been easy for a third party to contact one of the firms for a brochure, and mail it to me purporting that it came from the firm itself, for example.) – alephzero Nov 10 '18 at 12:26
  • 12
    @alephzero "But whether those firms have had any involvement at all in the affair is not so clear". So call them up and ask them. Qwerky's comment about the Law Society is spot on. – RonJohn Nov 10 '18 at 20:01
  • 2
    Please report back to us when everything is settled. If it is a scam, get a good writer-collaborator and write a book. You should be able to get 10K from the book sales. – ab2 Nov 11 '18 at 20:18
  • 1
    @jcm The top-voted question on meta (by a wide margin) is exactly that. – gerrit Nov 12 '18 at 10:51
  • @gerrit the ones I was thinking of aren't on there, I'll try to find them and add them. – jcm Nov 12 '18 at 10:53
  • 4
    @alephzero - Regarding the update. I still believe it is possible that the first two letters and the cheque are genuine, but the third letter is from a scammer. I'd still advise following through on the advice given below about how to check that the original story is genuine. – AndyT Nov 12 '18 at 16:30
  • This feels like an example of the "If you want to ask 'Is this a scam' then, yes, it's a scam" rule. – Max Williams Nov 12 '18 at 16:47
  • 1
    It's funny how often I see, "This looks legitimate; they have a web site." – Joel Coehoorn Nov 12 '18 at 17:31
  • @alephzero: nobody except for gov financial institutions can trace back your cheque. Banks in civilized areas check between themselves that the cheque is correct and that's all. You cannot ask your bank "I issued a cheque and it was cashed. What bank was it cashed in?" – WoJ Nov 13 '18 at 10:40
  • Approximately how much is close to a 5-figure sum? About 9500 GBP? (I'm not asking how much the OP has inherited, but I'm asking about language usage.) – pts Nov 13 '18 at 20:35
  • 2
    @pts, yep. A fraction under £10,000 (£8,500 - £9,900) – mcalex Nov 14 '18 at 08:30
  • @alephzero Was it authentic, I mean did you checked it out eventually? – Suraj Jain Nov 15 '18 at 11:52
  • 1
    @pts I have no idea who user "mcalex" is, or why he/she chose to answer the question on my behalf, but his/her answer is basically correct. – alephzero Nov 15 '18 at 12:37
  • 1
    @alephzero " I'm asking about language usage" -> because the question wasn't directed at you ;) – DonQuiKong Nov 16 '18 at 13:15
  • @Nat Bitcoin does have a few good use cases such as this one, unfortunately they all seem to be outside the realm where I would normally transact business! –  Nov 16 '18 at 17:45
  • Did you get the promised cheque and did it clear? – DJClayworth Dec 19 '18 at 04:49
  • What does "late mother" mean? In the title you say "distant relative", so it's apparently not your real mother. leo.org doesn't give me any results for it. Which family relation is meant by this? – Fabian Röling Feb 01 '19 at 09:02
  • 1
    @FabianRöling "Late" in this case means "deceased". The "late mother" and "distant relative" are two different people. – Aaron Dufour Aug 06 '19 at 11:59

11 Answers11

191

In any instance where your hackles are raised about a possible scam, but you have reason to move forward regardless, approach with caution, and complete whatever due diligence you can, without direct contact from the potential scammers.

ie: if they've given you a phone number in the letter, don't call that number to confirm legitimacy. Instead, Google the name of the firm. First, confirm they are legitimate [if you start googling 'Smith & George Practitioners of Law, LLP', and it autocompletes to 'Smith & George Scam?', that's another red flag]. Check reviews of their work, and check 3rd party websites for linkages to associations. ie: Don't trust a seal of approval on their website that shows they are 'UK Board Certified' or whatever, instead go to the website for the UK Board of Certification, and see if they are listed as a member. In this specific case, in the UK you can use solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk, per the helpful tip of @Qwerky in the comments.

After confirming they are legitimate, contact their main reception number from the website that you searched not the number that was given to you in the letter. Ask to be transferred to the person indicated on your letter, and request that they confirm that they were the ones to send the letter in the first place. Note - you should do this for both entities which are listed in the letters - the geneological research firm + the law firm that later provided the cheque. This would have been a good thing to do before sending a reply in the first place.

This will allow you to confirm - (a) that the firm exists, (b) that the firm is not visibly just a front for something illegal; and (c) that the existing firm sent you the letter. Note that this does not yet confirm legitimacy. There are some shady businesses out there, and you may not be able to tell immediately that the person contacting you is more 'Saul Goodman' than 'Atticus Finch'. So now you need to approach the payment carefully.

For the cheque itself, I would advise you to raise the risk of potential illegitimacy to the bank. You could advise them when cashing the cheque that you have had no prior contact with the law firm that provided the cheque to you, and that you want a confirmation when the true payment has actually cleared - this may be weeks later depending on where the payment is coming from. Given that you would only complete this step after confirming legitimacy of the law firm and the legitimacy of your letter being from that firm, your risk at this point should be low.

Given that the cheque is drawn from a local bank, it may even be worth your time to create an account with that bank for the purposes of cashing this cheque - this could help them more immediately confirm the legitimacy of the cheque.

Finally - make sure you spend none of the money until you've gotten something from the bank confirming that it has fully cleared - you don't want to pay any fees for overdrawn payments after this cheque bounces.

There is still a possibility here that you are in stage 1 of a possible scam. Approach with caution. For a near 5 figure sum, you may want to hire your own lawyer to advise you on your best course of action, though I imagine that might cost you a few hundred pounds, at least.

For the record, while your story contains many of the tell-tale signs of a scam, the following are the pieces of information that would make me cautiously optimistic about investigating further, instead of simply trashing:

  • They got the name of your relative correct [although likely there is public info out there linking your name with theirs, that means this is more targetted than mass/automated];
  • They waited 12 months before handing you a cheque [scammers will want to move quickly while they have piqued your interest];
  • They are being paid by reducing the amount of the cheque they sent you [a legitimate way to be compensated for services], rather than by sending you the full amount and asking for a partial refund [a common method of the 'cheque-clearing scam']; and
  • The cheque is ostensibly from a major, local bank [scammers will often purport to be sending funds from offshore accounts with banks you've never heard of].

None of the above is a guarantee of legitimacy, and the red flags you've noted should all be taken seriously, but there is enough here that if it were me, I would move forward incredibly cautiously.

Grade 'Eh' Bacon
  • 42,639
  • 11
  • 107
  • 163
  • 43
    FWIW, this kind of heir-tracing is a slightly common and legitimate thing in the UK, so while you're right to encourage caution, I think it probably isn't stage 1 of a scam. – GS - Apologise to Monica Nov 09 '18 at 15:26
  • 27
    @GaneshSittampalam To be honest I would tend to agree with you, but for reference of future readers [who might meet all of the red flags above + others not present for the OP, and who might might 1/2 of the 'green flags' above], I want to reiterate that this is dangerous territory. Perhaps I rode the line to harshly, but I think 'cautiously optimistic' is the right tone for this specific event. For reference I have changed the tone of that sentence to reflect this fact. – Grade 'Eh' Bacon Nov 09 '18 at 15:33
  • 194
    wow, an 'is this a scam?' question that might not actually be a scam. – Mr.Mindor Nov 09 '18 at 17:49
  • @Mr.Mindor The exception that proves the rule, I suppose ;) – Steve-O Nov 09 '18 at 18:46
  • 4
    Just for the record, not a "major local bank" but "a major international bank" which was one of the original "big four" national banks in the UK. The UK doesn't have "local banks" in the same sense as the US. (In fact, it's the same bank that I personally have accounts with, though that isn't relevant). – alephzero Nov 09 '18 at 20:47
  • @alephzero I only meant - a major bank with a local physical presence, which is a positive . – Grade 'Eh' Bacon Nov 09 '18 at 21:24
  • I'm not sure how things work in the UK, but in the US, you can usually contact the bank a check is drawn on to ask them if it would clear were it to be cashed immediately. They will not give you any more information about the account other than a "yes it would clear right now" or "no, it cannot clear right now". There is still no guarantee that it will clear when actually presented for payment. – Xcali Nov 09 '18 at 22:52
  • 43
    @Mr.Mindor Your optimism may have been premature. See my update to the question. – alephzero Nov 10 '18 at 12:19
  • 1
    Searching for the phone number itself might be useful as well. For instance, https://www.google.nl/search?q=020+7930+4433 – SQB Nov 12 '18 at 16:04
  • Yes. Any time I am contacted by someone claiming to represent a charity that I am interested in supporting, I never simply send money to the address or web page listed in the letter or email. I look up the organization on the internet, and compare contact info to what was in the letter. Yeah, the web page might be fake, but if only one turns up in a web search, it's probably the real one. – Jay Nov 13 '18 at 21:58
  • I once met a woman from another country over the internet, ended up going on a date with her. Lest you wonder, nothing came of it. But I was suspicious it might be a scam. She claimed to be an officer in an insurance company, so I searched for her name and the company name. I found the company name on a report from the government insurance commission. I also found her name in a newsletter from the local Rotary Club, a trivial mention of her being on some committee. I figured it unlikely a scammer had set up a fake Rotary Club web site with fake newsletters that briefly mentioned ... – Jay Nov 13 '18 at 22:01
  • ... the fake person. If they were going to make a fake newsletter, wouldn't their person be the subject of a major article, really building them up? It's possible, of course, that it was very subtle and clever scammers, but at that point I figured it was probably real. Oh, and the company had a web site with pictures of employees, including her. That would have been fairly easy to fake, but still worth something. – Jay Nov 13 '18 at 22:03
  • @GaneshSittampalam - I would think a moderator on this site would be a little more cautious with their comments. This is for sure step 1 of a scam. Saying that it is normal even in the UK is just far fetched at best and really not clear thinking. Unless you have been hiding in a cave you will hear about this from other family members not some weird letter. This answer and comments were upvoted way too soon. – blankip Nov 14 '18 at 19:53
  • 9
    @blankip I can only suggest you read alephzero's own answer :-) – GS - Apologise to Monica Nov 14 '18 at 19:55
  • "They are being paid by reducing the amount of the cheque they sent you." Out of curiosity, are there any common scams where this is actually done (and not followed by an invitation for you to send some of that money elsewhere again)? – user541686 Jun 12 '19 at 01:56
184

To close this out, in fact it wasn't a scam, despite the third letter.

The contact details in the second letter checked out against the Law Society website, so I gave them a ring on their general contact number.

The "out of office reply followed by silence" was simply because someone had forgotten to change their message from "I'm out of the office at present" to "I will be away from the office for the next 2 weeks." They were indeed administering the estate and posted the cheque before they went away.

According to the solicitors, the situation was that prior to the death of Mary Smith's husband 15 years ago, all the family financial affairs had been organized by him.

He was a senior trade union official representing one of the major industries in the area, which explains the large size of the estate. He left everything to his wife, but she was pretty clueless about how to manage the situation, and relied on the advice of a friend who was not a family member.

In the 14 years between her husband's death and her own, things became increasingly disorganized, but the friend who was acting as unpaid advisor was convinced that there was a will which left everything to her, since the couple had no children of their own.

In fact it turned out there was no will at all, which left the friend with nothing, and the estate distributed among the descendants of uncles, aunts, and half-cousins (including myself) who were the nearest surviving relatives that could be found.

The third letter would seem to be an (optimistic!!) attempt by another family member to smooth other the resulting feud with the aggrieved friend, by asking the beneficiaries to "do the decent thing" and give their share of the estate to the person who thought she was going to get what she had spent years "working for," unpaid.

So far as I'm concerned, she can go jump in a lake - I don't "do charity". She had 14 years to persuade Mary Smith to make the will she wanted, and failed - so that's not my problem!

Something tells me this might not be the end of the story - but it is the end so far as the legacy itself is concerned. According to the solicitors, the only way to make a legal challenge to the distribution of funds in the absence of a will is for all the recipients under the "standard rules" to agree to a change - and guess what, some of them won't do that!

UPDATE - 15 Nov 2018

I have just received an unsolicited letter, from the genealogy research company, concerning the third letter - apparently some other recipients of it had contacted them. To summarize it:

  • The author of the third letter was a beneficiary in his own right, and has received his own share of the estate.

  • He apparently believes that some individual is "entitled" to the entire estate, though there is nothing to support that claim.

  • He requested that the lawyers involved in the administration send a letter to that effect to all the other beneficiaries, but the lawyers refused, on the grounds that there was no basis for his opinion on what the settlement should have been.

  • He was not personally entitled to demand a full list of the beneficiaries' names and addresses, but he obtained a copy of it from someone (a private individual, not a lawyer!) who was legally entitled to that information.

The final paragraph was "We stress that you are under no obligation whatever to reply to this [i.e. the third] letter. You have received the correct entitlement due by law."

"Go jump in a lake", indeed!

And the cheque has now cleared.

alephzero
  • 4,433
  • 3
  • 15
  • 16
  • 120
    This may be a first on this stack: a question posted under “scams” that turns out to NOT be a scam! – s3raph86 Nov 13 '18 at 11:47
  • 3
    @s3raph86 FWIW, I still think it's a scam. I'm not buying that a trade union official had all that money and also had no will. – Terry Carmen Nov 13 '18 at 16:00
  • 18
    @TerryCarmen The TU official did have a will. He left everything to his wife. What he didn't do, apparently, was let his wife have anything to do with managing money while he was still alive, so when he was gone she was clueless. – alephzero Nov 13 '18 at 16:41
  • Just to be risk-adverse, it would be a good idea to call the bank that issued the check to confirm availability of funds. – Astor Florida Nov 13 '18 at 16:46
  • 2
    @axsvl77 It's hardly worth the bother of fighting your way through the bank's call center (staffed by people from whichever third world company bid the lowest price for the job!) when the standard cheque clearance time for cheques between two UK banks is now "by the end of the next working day" if you use the fastest option (i.e. using a scanned image of the cheque instead of moving physical bits of paper around). – alephzero Nov 13 '18 at 16:58
  • @alephzero Are there fees for bounced cheques in the UK? Here they can be pretty steep. – Astor Florida Nov 13 '18 at 17:01
  • 6
    @axsvl77 There are charges for writing a cheque that bounces because of insufficient funds. There is no charge for attempting to pay one in, unless you withdraw the money that you don't have and your account becomes overdrawn. – alephzero Nov 13 '18 at 17:13
  • 2
    @alephzero The banks get us in both directions here in the states. – Astor Florida Nov 13 '18 at 17:21
  • 2
    I find it odd that the TU official made a will but did not have his wife make one at the same time, with the two having reciprocal/complementary clauses. – shoover Nov 14 '18 at 00:02
  • 54
    "So far as I'm concerned, she can go jump in a lake - I don't "do charity". She had 14 years to persuade Mary Smith to make the will she wanted, and failed - so that's not my problem!" - ah, you had me rooting for you right up until that statement. IMO it doesn't add anything to of value and comes across as just a little harsh. Just sayin' – Stephen Byrne Nov 14 '18 at 11:13
  • 3
    @s3raph86 Not a first. There have been other "is this a scam" questions with "no" answers before. – WBT Nov 14 '18 at 15:17
  • @shoover With no children, I suspect he was confident that there wouldn't be any trouble if she passed as everything would just be his. Probably most everything was in his name only to begin with if she had nothing to do with any of it. A little unusual, sure, but probably nothing to worry about. – jpmc26 Nov 15 '18 at 01:44
  • 6
    @StephenByrne : whether the OP wants to gift money to a complete stranger, is completely the OP's choice, and we shouldn't be the judges in that matter. Why don't you send some of your money to that woman if her plight is so sympathetic to you? Charity should be voluntary, otherwise we wouldn't call it charity. – vsz Nov 15 '18 at 06:24
  • 21
    @vsz - indeed. I was only pointing out that imo this doesn't add anything to the answer. Personally I'm delighted for the OP and I hope this isn't a scam. But the OP doesn't know this "friend" and has - in my opinion - made a harsh judgement, by assuming that they are looking for this money in the first place. For all we know, the "other family member" who sent the letter is trying to get more for themselves...Don't know about you but I don't like the idea of a stranger wishing I would go jump in a lake, based on an assumption about my motives. but maybe that's just me :) – Stephen Byrne Nov 15 '18 at 08:52
  • 27
    @vsz I don't judge the OP for not wanting to give the money to a stranger either, but I definitely judge him for his comments regarding her jumping in a lake. That is harsh, considering he knows nothing about her. That sentence leaps out of this page, and leaves me a little uncomfortable. – bornfromanegg Nov 15 '18 at 09:21
  • 5
    @vsz Actually, my "jump in a lake" reaction was pretty much spot on - see the update above. It seems the author of the third letter had already been slapped down by the lawyers involved in the case before the third letter was sent. – alephzero Nov 15 '18 at 12:44
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – GS - Apologise to Monica Nov 15 '18 at 19:36
  • @HenningMakholm - it was a joke, nothing more. – Stephen Byrne Nov 18 '18 at 18:30
  • 3
    It appears some clarification is needed for the people complaining about the "Go jump in a lake" statement. While yes, that statement sounds harsh on the surface, it is actually a common phrase in the United States. It's like "Take a hike," or "Hit the road," where the speaker does not actually mean the words literally, and those who understand the cultural phrase generally do not take it literally. I think this is merely a cultural misunderstanding between the answerer and the commenters. @StephenByrne – Aaron Feb 01 '19 at 17:12
  • ... and @bornfromanegg – Aaron Feb 01 '19 at 17:12
  • 3
    @Aaron No, I understand the phrase - it’s common in the UK, too. But I stand by my comments. And it’s not just that phrase - it’s that paragraph as a whole. – bornfromanegg Feb 01 '19 at 17:24
  • 1
    Are you really saying that the name "Mary Smith" was REAL? – Bogdan Alexandru Jun 11 '19 at 13:35
25

I am skeptical too, but given the money involved, it may be worth a day's adventure to do some research.

Mail, email, phone, web can be faked. Offices can't.

You are right, there are a lot of "un-knowables" here based on your current level of research. That is because a postal letter, even one with a fine brochure, can be faked. A website where they give you the URL can be faked (the legit site can be cloned; they send you to the clone with the contact info altered.) Phone numbers can be set up for free by signing up for a Gmail account and activating Google Voice.

A "brick and mortar" office is much harder to fake. The first litmus test is you visit their office during business hours, and see if the place looks like a cheap throw-up, or if it has a sense of occupancy. If it's a multi-tenant building, ask the guard how long they've been there. If a standalone, take photos of their sign from the street, and fire up Google Maps and compare it to Street View (which is typically several years dated).

You can also phone up other attorneys in allied fields who are nearby, and ask them flat out of they've heard of that attorney. You might even have an interesting conversation with one. You can also contact the legal aid society. But I don't want you to overdepend on armchair research, nothing is a subsitute for visiting their office.

Walking in with a printout of whatever "they" sent you will be very enlightening. They'll either say "yeah, that's us" or "let me take a closer look at that!"

Another thing difficult to fake is a litigation record. While you're walking, swing by the nearest courthouse and search past cases for that attorney or firm, to see if they are actually active. Also search for anything about your family.

The contacts don't surprise me.

The first letter said she died without a will. That will involve a lengthy grinding through the default process for dispositioning her assets. The second letter said that they've found some of the money goes to you - that's the outcome of that lengthy grind, and the timing is believable.

Harper - Reinstate Monica
  • 58,229
  • 10
  • 91
  • 195
  • 18
    Unfortunately offices can also be faked. I read recently about a scam in Lagos, and the scammer rented an office in the same building as the big bank the clearance was supposed to come from (even same entry). – lalala Nov 12 '18 at 18:34
  • 25
    Offices can definitely be faked. The only reason we don't hear about that happening much these days is that email,phones and websites are sooo much easier and there are more than enough incautious people to go around all the scammers. – DRF Nov 12 '18 at 19:50
  • "Phone numbers can be set up for free" - is that true for things that look like landline numbers (with a geographical area code) rather than cellphone numbers which are pretty "anonymous" anyway? AFAIK in the UK, to get a landline number you need a contract with an ISP which will most likely be for a minimum of 12 months line rental, and a physical address where the ISP can install it. – alephzero Nov 13 '18 at 17:25
  • 2
    @alephzero In the United States, phone numbers look the same regardless of it being a landline or mobile connection. – UnhandledExcepSean Nov 13 '18 at 18:46
  • 2
    Somewhat, the newest numbers use 0 or 1 in the middle digit of the exchange, which used to be reserved for area codes... So 347-416-0000 has both "new style" area code (means nothing) and "new style" exchange likely to be cellular. Some area codes are split, others are overlays and overlay area codes are likely to be mostly cellular. Regardless, now with phone number porting, there are no rules anymore. Also businesses are using more virtual numbers, where the number is no longer tied to a landline. Again with porting. And 800/888/855 toll free numbers are dirt cheap. – Harper - Reinstate Monica Nov 13 '18 at 18:52
  • @alephzero Some IVRS system providers provide you with mobile number with geographical code in supported regions for setting up your customer service. Companies do setup local numbers for customer care even in regions they don't have offices. –  Oct 06 '20 at 11:18
10

I'm not sure how it is in the UK but in the US we have many laws around how unclaimed assets are handled for these types of situations. My company partners with another firm who makes an effort to locate owners or heirs of assets for a percentage of the assets. Typically they send a relatively non-descriptive letter that the person needs to sign which starts the process. The firm then handles the whole process of claiming/cashing in the assets for the owner/heir for a fee.

https://www.keaneunclaimedproperty.com/estate-research-and-recovery

Our Estate Research & Recovery services can:

Identify decedents and verify the proper heirs and beneficiaries of life insurance policy benefits

Search for rightful heirs of dormant bank accounts, certificates of deposit, safety deposit boxes, and additional banking properties

Locate lost investors and shareholders of public corporations and mutual funds

If you are able to figure out where the assets are held before signing the agreement with the firm you can typically avoid losing a percentage of the assets by going directly through the firm that has the assets.

  • This is indeed very similar to the pitch made in the genealogical company's brochure sent with their initial letter, and their web site. – alephzero Nov 09 '18 at 21:15
  • 4
    It's a delicate line: too much information could mean you lose the commission, and too little information could make you look like a scammer. – Pete Becker Nov 10 '18 at 12:12
10

The other answers give good advice. I would like to add this:

There is a kind of scam where a person is asked to handle money, which is later paid on to a third party or repaid. So far so good, but the twist is that the original receipt is bad (but took ages to finally fail), so in effect the person has paid out of their own pocket, believing the first payment is good, when it wasn't.

If this is a scam, the concern I'd have is that you bank the cheque, then get asked to repay it - perhaps it was paid to you "in error" or something, or they "discover" that half of it belonged to someone else. You repay as they ask, but later the original cheque later fails too. Scam.

It might not be that, but I would mainly protect yourself against that risk. So I would absolutely do what others have said - inform the bank, perhaps the police, check out/contact the law firm - but beyond all, I would not repay the money to the sender or anyone, or pay it on to any other person, or draw on it in any way, until you have it conformed in writing by the bank, that it has 100% cleared and funds have been received from the sender, with no possibility of the receipt being "unwound" at any future time.

In particular, if you do get a request (for any purported reason) to later repay it, forward it, or a claim of any error, that should be a huge red flag. Don't do any such payment/onward payment/repayment/transfer/whatever, without very careful checking with your bank and anyone else, first.

Stilez
  • 2,596
  • 1
  • 9
  • 14
  • 5
    Don't do onwards/return payments ever, full stop. I believe the OP's case is likely legitimate Probate Research, but the only correct way to reverse a mistaken transaction, in all circumstances, is to have the sender contact the bank(s) and for them to contact you. You are very correct it's a "huge red flag", but no "careful checking" is needed, just don't do it. – Nathan Nov 13 '18 at 13:03
6

In the UK, a cheque from a UK bank will clear after 6 working days. Once it's cleared, the sender can't get their money back (unless they can show you were part of a fraud). So pay it in to your UK bank account, and wait 2 weeks before you spend any of the money. If it clears, congratulations; if it doesn't then it was a scam.

Source: https://www.chequeandcredit.co.uk/information-hub/cheque-fraud-advice/protecting-bank-customers-cheque-fraud

Jon
  • 69
  • 2
  • It might be worthwhile to contact the bank prior to deposit to confirm availability of funds. – Astor Florida Nov 13 '18 at 16:39
  • 3
    This is now out of date. The UK cheque image clearance system will process a sterling cheque drawn on a UK bank within 48 hours, including the "fraud protection time". You don't even need to visit your bank to deposit the cheque, you can use the bank's app to take a picture of it with your phone and pay it in electronically. https://www.chequeandcredit.co.uk/press-release/cheques-are-starting-clear-end-next-weekday-october-2017 – alephzero Nov 13 '18 at 16:51
  • The new scheme hasn't fully rolled out yet. "Banks and building societies are now working towards clearing all cheques via the Image Clearing System and the rollout of this new system is continuing in 2019." Source: https://www.chequeandcredit.co.uk/cheque-users/consumers/how-cheques-clear-%E2%80%93-advice-consumers So it depends on your bank, but 6 working days will definitely be safe. – Jon Jan 22 '19 at 16:17
4

If this were in the United States, my suggestion would be to go to your state Attorney General's office and ask them to review the following:

  1. Is the check a legitimate payout of the estate?
  2. Was money taken out of the payout before you received it and was that legitimate?
  3. Is the request to give money to the other relatives legitimate?

I do not know the equivalent office in the United Kingdom. You could quite likely find this out by calling the police on a non-emergency line and asking. In the US, it's the prosecutorial staff that would investigate at this level, not the police. It's more of a civil investigation than a criminal one.

Here's what I think happened. This lady died intestate (without a will) but with a large estate, at least a million British Pounds (GBP) (if you can get almost ten thousand as one of a hundred after a lawyer's commission, that suggests at least a million). The vultures descended. This included one or more law firms. The law firms proceeded to investigate possible heirs that they could represent. Once they had you lined up, they received a settlement, part of which they kept.

Probate records are public documents saying who represents who in terms of inheritance claims. So if you agreed to have these lawyers represent you and they did so, that's public information. That would then allow representatives of other heirs (real or fake) to contact you and ask you to give back the money.

Things that I might consider scams:

  1. The commission paid to the lawyers may be too high. I would consider this a scam, but the lawyers might be covered legally, as you agreed to their representation.
  2. Under no circumstances should you pay the lawyers or genealogy firm out of your share without further investigation. They should have collected the money and disbursed only your share to you.
  3. Was the share paid to you smaller than it should have been? What if the estate was fifteen million? Then your share was only about 10% of what it should have been, even after a 35% lawyer's commission. The lawyers made out like bandits, and the other heirs are getting a disproportionate share of the estate because you agreed to a small settlement.
  4. Paying the real or fake relatives for taking care of this lady in her later years seems a bit of a scam even if they're real. She was in a nursing home and had plenty of money. Presumably she was paying her way. What were they doing? Is the person who sent that letter actually turning money over to someone else? Or is the letter fraudulent?

Turn it over for investigation. You should not have to pay a lawyer at this point. It's possible that you may want to do so after the official investigation. It's not really necessary if all you want to do is cash the check. The primary purpose of a lawyer would be to argue that you should get more money. But the best time for that would have been before you agreed to let the other lawyers represent you.

It's also possible that there is an even bigger scam. Scammers see an intestate death. They send you a check that will ultimately bounce. They try to get you to send money to them or others. If that's it, then law enforcement should be notified as soon as possible. If the equivalent of a state attorney general starts asking about something, then that kind of scammer will just pack up and move on. They probably won't bother you again because you are dangerous and call law enforcement before they finish scamming you.

The greater worry is that it's all semi-legit. You signed away some of your rights already and the relatives have convinced themselves that they really deserve the entire inheritance. After all, they were nice to that miserable [expletive deleted] and she didn't even reward them with a nice will. Or worse, she did have a will -- that left everything to charity and has now disappeared.

Keep any correspondence from anyone. If someone sues you to recover part or all of the check you received, you may want to show it in court to explain why you didn't immediately pay that person.

I would call law enforcement first, but I don't see any reason why you shouldn't deposit the check. Presumably they will tell you to deposit but not spend the money (in case of fraud). They may want to do a cursory investigation first. If you do what law enforcement tells you, then you can't be accused of participating in a scam.

If there is a scam, the best time to report it is before they have collected the money. I.e. as soon as possible.

Brythan
  • 20,968
  • 6
  • 53
  • 67
  • 3
    "You signed away some of your rights already" - well, don't forget the family motto of the Rothschild's, who did pretty well for themselves. It was, "always leave 10% for the other guy". So far as commission is concerned, "90% of a lot of money" is still "a lot of money." – alephzero Nov 12 '18 at 19:04
  • 2
    If your bank charges you for depositing a bad check, that would be a reason not to deposit it. – Green Grasso Holm Nov 14 '18 at 16:59
2

I'm in the US, and a similar thing actually happened to me several years ago. In my case, it was "we've tracked you down as one of ~30 first and second cousins of Ms. XXX, who died intestate worth close to a million dollars." Sounded fishy as hell, especially as the initial contact was a phone call, and the guy absolutely sounded like the biggest huckster you can imagine. However, after nearly a year, I got a check for about $30K.

Makes you wonder how/why someone who owns multiple properties and has a large amount of money in the bank doesn't make a will... my estate isn't as large as hers was, but I know who it's going to when I die!

Ann
  • 29
  • 1
0

I received a modest legacy from a great-aunt whose assets needed to be divided between a large number of distant relatives (she owned a house on a large inner-city plot that had become very valuable over the years, and when she had inherited it back in the 1930s, it was on the condition that she would distribute the proceeds to the wider family when she died). A large chunk of the money went to the lawyers for their efforts in tracing all the relatives, most of whom had no idea this money was coming. So: just an anecdote to confirm that these things do happen.

Michael Kay
  • 703
  • 4
  • 7
-4

If it's legitimate and your relative died without a will and the government couldn't find any heirs it would go to the government's "Unclaimed Funds" office, where anybody with a legitimate claim could go and get the money without paying a lawyer.

However this is almost certainly not the case. It's almost 100% certain that it's a scam.

What you have is a fake check. You'll deposit it, the "lawyer" will ask for their cut, you'll pay them, and then a few weeks later, the bank will discover that the check was forged and take back all their money. The money you sent the "lawyer", however, will be gone forever.

Another possibility is that the lawyer is asking you to commit fraud and claim that you're the sole heir, while there are actually hundreds of people with a claim to the money and you might not even be one of them.

Unless it's the first option where you contact your government's Unclaimed Funds Office and they send you a check, somehow you're about to get defrauded or commit fraud to benefit the "lawyer".

  • Events have proven you were wrong. The fact that the OP was asked to agree to the commission being paid direct to the heir-finders (rather than the OP being required to pay their cut) was what made it clear to me it was probably legitimate. Also the OP is in the UK, and there is no "Unclaimed Funds" office. If no heirs can be found, the estate reverts to the Crown (or the Duchy of Cornwall/Duchy of Lancaster depending on location). – Martin Bonner supports Monica Nov 26 '19 at 16:42
-4

As far as I know, the costs of probating an estate and distributing its assets are payable out of the estate itself. At least, that's true in the United States, to the best of my understanding. In addition, anything that you are entitled to upon someone's death, you are entitled to. You don't have to grease someone's palm to get it. They can't hold it for ransom. They're already being paid by the executor for their services in disbursing the assets of the deceased.

I suspect that if you were to pursue this, they would insist on receiving their "commission" from you up front and, once you paid it, you would never hear from them again.

They might "deposit" funds into your account first and then ask you to send them their cut right away, only for the bank to discover over the next few days that the deposit was phony and debit the amount that had been tentatively credited to your account.

Or you might give them your bank's routing number and account number and then learn shortly afterwards that a substantial withdrawal (up to and including the entire balance) had been withdrawn without your knowledge.

  • 2
    Welcome to the site. I think the downvote is because this is a US-centric answer on a UK-tagged question. – NL - Apologize to Monica Nov 14 '18 at 16:50
  • @NathanL, scams are scams worldwide, and the business of wanting a commission in advance, or after a "deposit" has been made, only for it to turn out after the commission has been paid that the bank has voided the deposit, has been going on since before the Internet was born. (I received my first "Nigerian prince" scam letter in snail mail in the mid-1980s.) – Green Grasso Holm Nov 14 '18 at 16:56
  • I would generally agree with your skepticism, but I don't have any certain knowledge of inheritance norms in the UK, so I don't know if it would be suspicious there. – NL - Apologize to Monica Nov 14 '18 at 16:57
  • 1
    In any case, welcome to the site. I hope you'll have other opportunities to contribute your experience. – NL - Apologize to Monica Nov 14 '18 at 17:01
  • 1
    The OP mentioned that they already have pursued it to the point of receiving a cheque, so much of this answer doesn't actually address the question. – GS - Apologise to Monica Nov 15 '18 at 07:06
  • Good to hear from someone who's concerned with pouncing on every word anyone writes that goes one step beyond addressing, and only addressing, exactly the question that the OP finally got around to asking at the very end, and dares also to cover other parts of the OP's content. And, by the way, I did address the point about how receiving a supposed check doesn't mean it isn't a scam. – Green Grasso Holm Nov 15 '18 at 19:28
  • And -5 to @AndyT for (a) claiming I didn't read the question, given that I did, (b) claiming that it contradicts a lot of what I said, which it doesn't, (c) for imagining that a scam is magically not a scam when practiced in a different country, (d) for having commented on my note without first reading everything I've written here, including where I already pointed out that scams are worldwide, and (e) for penalizing me for not knowing on the 14th that it would turn out on the 15th that this particular case turned out to be legitimate after all. – Green Grasso Holm Nov 20 '18 at 14:36
  • @AndyT, are you claiming that practitioners of Nigerian inheritance schemes don't perpetrate their deceptions in the UK? Does the UK have a magical barrier that prevents this from happening? Also, everything the OP wrote on Nov 12 amounted to the OP choosing to accept at face value what could just as well as been manufactured rationalizations of the sort that scammers are adapt at crafting. November 15 is when the OP reported that the check had cleared. Therefore, November 15 is when the matter was no longer in doubt. – Green Grasso Holm Nov 21 '18 at 15:42
  • Down voting because the executors of the estate are indeed paid out of the estate. Tracing difficult-to-find heirs however is not done by the executors, it is done by heir-finders who do get paid a commission. You are entitled to the money, and if you can find the executors, you can get it directly without paying the commission. (My partner got a few hundred pounds like this a while ago.) – Martin Bonner supports Monica Nov 26 '19 at 16:46