A move that for many would seem perfectly normal proved especially accurate. A woman who opened her husband's bank box after his death was faced with a fine of 1,000 euros, as she went on to visit before the tax-based process of inventory of her content was completed. Although she argued that she did not remove anything, that the box was already empty and that she was unaware of the ban on entry, her appeal was rejected and the sanction remained in effect.
The case is a typical example of an unknown provision that can lead to fines for people who believe they are acting legally. There are not few who consider that an old authorization or proxy is still valid after the death of the holder of the box. In fact, however, since death comes, a different process is initiated, which aims to secure the inheritance and protect the rights of all heirs and the State.
The fine
In this case, the woman was appointed as her husband’s proxies while he was alive. Considering that he could continue using the box, he visited it after his death. Later, when the formal procedure for opening the box began as part of the hereditary process, it was found that this was vacant.
This has caused control by the competent authorities. Through the bank's file of visits it was shown that the deposit box had been opened prior to the death of the holder and before the legal census took place. This was sufficient to initiate the administrative fine procedure.
The woman appealed to the Dispute Resolution Directorate (TEN) requesting the annulment of the act. He argued that he did not remove money, jewelry or any other object, as the box was already empty when he opened it. She also insisted that she was not aware of the ban, after believing that her husband’s authorization continued to produce results. At the same time, she invoked her difficult financial situation and requested that the fine be reduced or deleted. But her claims were not accepted.
In the context of the decision, the TEN points out that the enforcement of this administrative sanction does not require that it be proved fraudulent or intending to violate the law. It is sufficient to establish that the box was opened in breach of the procedure envisaged. In other words, even if nothing was removed from its interior, even if the box was empty, even if the person concerned did not know that the act was prohibited, the infringement is considered to have been carried out.
This decision acts as an important reminder for those faced with heritage acceptance procedures. Banking lockers are treated differently from a simple bank account. Their contents may include money, jewelry, gemstones, gold pounds, documents, wills, property titles or other objects of great economic or emotional value. For this reason tax legislation provides for concrete steps before the heirs gain access to the content.
The inventory process aims to record officially what is in the box at the time of its opening. This record is crucial both for the proper clearance of the inheritance and for the calculation of any tax obligations. At the same time it protects the heirs themselves, as future disagreements or doubts about the contents of the box are avoided.
What many ignore is that any authorization or proxy given by the holder as long as he was alive does not allow free access after his death. From that time on, the specific provisions of the hereditary process and any action other than that may be considered an infringement, regardless of the motivation or actual intention of the person who proceeded to the opening.
This decision is expected to be a point of reference for similar cases in the future, as it makes it clear that the objective finding of the infringement is sufficient to enforce administrative sanctions. It is not considered whether there has been an economic benefit or whether items have been removed from the box. It is the infringement of the prescribed procedure itself that triggers the fine.
Lack of law
That is why tax workers are paying particular attention to those who are invited to manage an inheritance. Before any move is made concerning a bank deposit box, it is necessary to prior information from the bank, notary or tax officer handling the case in order to comply with all legal procedures.
Ignorance of the law, as has been demonstrated in this case, is not a reason for exemption from the fine. And an opening that may seem formal or procedural is enough to turn into an unexpected financial burden.
The case highlights another unknown aspect of banking lockers. Although banks do not know or record their contents, they keep a detailed record of each visit, which records the dates and times of access. In this case, it was precisely this element that allowed the tax authorities to establish that the deposit box had been opened after the death of the holder and before the intended census. This is a detail that many tenants and heirs ignore, mistaking that the use of the box leaves no trace beyond its contents.
