Lost in transactions: Widow’s family accuses Westpac of negligence over mysterious withdrawals

In a world where trust and reliability in financial institutions are paramount, recent headlines have highlighted a troubling trend of vulnerability and exploitation.

The intersection of personal finances and institutional responsibility has come under scrutiny as stories emerge of individuals facing unexpected challenges navigating their banking affairs.

These incidents serve as poignant reminders of the importance of safeguarding vulnerable members of society and upholding the principles of ethical and transparent financial practices.


The tragic tale of an 89-year-old widow with dementia who withdrew a staggering $305,000 in cash before her death left her family reeling, not only from the loss but from what they perceive as a grave misstep by Westpac staff.

The family's grief is compounded by their belief that the bank failed to safeguard their vulnerable loved one, leading to a situation that they claim borders on elder abuse.


compressed-shutterstock_132026396.jpeg
An elderly widow with dementia withdrew over $300,000 from her Westpac account before passing away, without clear justification for the large cash amounts. Credits: Shutterstock


The woman, who had been a loyal client of a Westpac branch on the North Island of New Zealand, made over 70 teller-assisted cash withdrawals from September 2017 until her death in July 2020.

These transactions amounted to a considerable sum of money, which her family said largely vanished without a trace.

The daughter of the deceased, who had been appointed as her mum’s power of attorney, had informed the bank of her mother's dementia and vulnerability in February 2020.

In response, Westpac added a note to the widow's file indicating her status as a ‘vulnerable customer’, cautioning staff to ‘take care with any large or unusual transactions’.

However, despite this warning, the elderly woman was still able to withdraw $50,000 in five separate transactions in the months leading up to her death.


The daughter's shock was palpable when she discovered the extent of the withdrawals, particularly as her mum had no significant expenses that would justify such large sums of cash.

According to her, the widow had paid off her home and car, and there were no hefty utility bills or credit card payments to account for the money.

‘What the hell did they think she was spending the money on?’ the daughter questioned.

She recalled that she noticed ‘something was off’ about her mum’s behaviour in the months preceding her passing, noting her irritability and remarks about ‘people fleecing her for money’.

Family members attempted to ascertain the complete sum of cash the widow withdrew, suspecting that over $200,000 had simply ‘disappeared’.

‘I can't prove it, but the money is missing. And the $23,000 she withdrew three weeks before she died, that was gone from her house,’ the daughter lamented.


The daughter, concerned about her mother's financial activity, meticulously reviewed her bank statements. To her astonishment, she uncovered that her mother had withdrawn upwards of $200,000 in cash over the final 18 months of her life.

Among the transactions, the largest in-branch withdrawal amounted to $24,000 in May 2019.

Recalling her final visit to the bank with her mother, the daughter recounted witnessing a teller handing over an envelope containing $23,000, despite her mother not carrying a handbag.

Although unaware of the exact sum at the time, she vividly remembered the teller remarking on the substantial nature of the withdrawal.

‘They let her walk out without a handbag with a Westpac envelope stuffed with cash. It was probably like 8cm thick,’ she recalled.


The daughter confronted bank personnel regarding the string of substantial cash withdrawals, asserting that they admitted to being ‘too scared’ to inquire why the pensioner required such funds.

Allegedly, they speculated that the mum ‘maybe wanted to purchase a mobility scooter’ with the cash.

Concerned about potential elder abuse, the family reached out to the authorities, highlighting the pensioner's modest lifestyle and the absence of any noticeable personal expenditures.

Subsequently, an investigation was initiated, and a person of interest was interrogated; however, it was ultimately terminated due to the inability to establish any link between the individual and the withdrawn funds, as the cash could not be traced.

In response to the perceived negligence, the family lodged a formal complaint against the Australian-owned bank, accusing it of failing to fulfil its duty of care toward a vulnerable and elderly customer.

The complaint alleged that Westpac tellers neglected to scrutinise the cash withdrawals despite the presence of a warning flag denoting the customer's vulnerability in her file.

Additionally, the family lodged a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman.


In a correspondence dated May, Westpac described the deceased pensioner as ‘very well respected’ within the branch.

The bank asserted that its employees did not perceive the woman to have any ‘vulnerabilities’ and did not view any of the withdrawals as suspicious.

The correspondence clarified that the mother's pattern of withdrawing money was customary, as it aligned with her banking habits and financial management practices.

Furthermore, the bank stated that its staff shared the same perspective as the daughter, who indicated that her mother was not someone who warranted interrogation regarding her finances.

Westpac stated that its staff had inquired about the motive behind the woman's cash withdrawals on ‘several occasions’ and characterised the woman as ‘confident and savvy with money’.

According to Westpac’s statement, ‘She was very private about her finances, which was acknowledged by her daughter…and our staff ultimately acted on her instructions in processing the withdrawals.’


The bank stated that tellers began asking additional questions regarding cash withdrawals after February 2020, following the implementation of the ‘extra care’ code on the woman's account at the daughter's request.

In March, the elderly woman made three withdrawals totalling $25,000 and informed staff that she required the cash due to COVID-19 lockdowns.

Additionally, during her final withdrawal of $23,000, staff inquired about the large sum, and she explained that she needed it as she was uncertain when she would next visit the branch.

Staff indicated they felt ‘comfortable’ in providing the cash in an envelope as the woman was accompanied by her daughter.


As financial institutions grapple with the complexities of safeguarding their vulnerable clients, harrowing tales emerge, underscoring the pressing need for greater protection measures.

According to the ACCC's Scamwatch, in 2023, Australians aged 65 and over reported more than 72,000 scams, with victims losing almost $121 million.

This was exemplified by another heart-wrenching experience of a 95-year-old grandmother who fell victim to a devastating scam, leaving her stripped of her life savings and grappling with feelings of betrayal and humiliation.

Such narratives serve as poignant reminders of the imperative to fortify safeguards and advocate for the well-being of our elderly population in an increasingly complex financial landscape.
Key Takeaways
  • An elderly widow with dementia withdrew over $300,000 from her Westpac bank account before her death without a clear need or explanation for the large sums of cash.
  • The woman's family accused Westpac of failing in its duty of care by allowing these withdrawals to proceed despite knowing about her vulnerable condition.
  • Attempts to track down the withdrawn funds were mostly unsuccessful, with a significant portion of the money unaccounted for, raising concerns of potential elder abuse.
  • The family lodged formal complaints with Westpac and the Banking Ombudsman, arguing the bank should have taken additional steps to protect the vulnerable customer; however, no substantial evidence has surfaced to further the investigation.
Have you or someone you know faced similar challenges with a financial institution? How do you think banks should handle situations involving vulnerable seniors? We invite you to share your thoughts and experiences on this matter in the comments below.
 
  • Sad
  • Angry
Reactions: Liag and SurVivor23
Sponsored
The first mistake that the daughter made was trusting the bank to do the right thing and take action aligned with the notation that had been made on her mothers account regarding her vulnerability , the bank really could not give a F****, they are not about protecting their customers, they are running a business and anyone and everyone is there to be a victim
 
If this woman had a formal diagnosis of onset of dementia and the daughter was appointed power of attorney then perhaps the daughter should have advised the bank when this was done. If the bank knew she was not really capable of doing things for herself, (and yes some can appear fine but still not capable of making rational decisions) then the bank notification should have started no withdrawals without the daughter present. This could create some angst for the woman BUT it would have been a safeguard. The woman obviously lived on her own.
 
The first mistake that the daughter made was trusting the bank to do the right thing and take action aligned with the notation that had been made on her mothers account regarding her vulnerability , the bank really could not give a F****, they are not about protecting their customers, they are running a business and anyone and everyone is there to be a victim
yeah I wonder about the strength of the power of attorney if the mother was diagnosed with dementia but the daughter didn't seem to do much with it.
 
My mother had dementia, my sister & I were PoA. Bank was given details of PoA & we advised them no withdrawals more than $100 on any given day as we had found she was withdrawing all her pension in a lump sum. Not a large amount, but an elderly widow with dementia was vulnerable to theft. No major drama in those days (early 2010 admittedly), but there are thieves and scammers everywhere now.

Withdrawing that amount without a handbag should have set off alarm bells with the daughter first and the bank as well, at the time. Why did daughter SEE this large amount being given in an envelope & not stop it? She cannot blame bank if she was stupid enough to allow that one incident in front of her to take place. Definitely more to this story!
 
It seems odd that the daughter was with the mother when the money was handed over yet didn't query it then. So why should the bank query it when she was there too. More to it than meets the eye for sure.
Possibly not the daughter. It's not clear from this report whether the bank verified her identity.
It's possibly somebody who had earned the trust of the mother and is scamming her. The bank should have CCTV so that an enquiry can investigate such things.
 
Last edited:
If this woman had a formal diagnosis of onset of dementia and the daughter was appointed power of attorney then perhaps the daughter should have advised the bank when this was done. If the bank knew she was not really capable of doing things for herself, (and yes some can appear fine but still not capable of making rational decisions) then the bank notification should have started no withdrawals without the daughter present. This could create some angst for the woman BUT it would have been a safeguard. The woman obviously lived on her own.
Surely she could have had a solicitor make her financially responsible as the diagnosis would indicate she was vulnerable. Would she have complained if the cash was given to the daughter to save tax etc
 
I believe dementia patients can become snappy and cranky, so probably the reason the mother wouldn't tell her daughter what she was doing. However, the daughter should have been checking her mother's bank balance/account. It's not the bank's fault.
 
The article indicates that the daughter informed the bank of the customer's dementia by February 2020.

The withdrawals were from September 2017 through to July 2020.

It also states that the daughter was PoA although doesn't inform from what date.

Without knowing when the PoA began, it is difficult to comment. If it was in force by September 2017, questions worth asking might be:

1. Did PoA review bank statements from September 2017 through to January 2020? If customer was already diagnosed, PoA could have accessed statements via online or in person at the branch; and

2. Did PoA investigate the customer's allegation in the "...months preceding her passing...'people fleecing her for money'".

The article also states that both PoA and bank considered the customer as:

1. Not vulnerable / withdrawals not suspicious (bank);

2. "...mother was not someone who warranted interrogation regarding her finances..." (PoA and bank);

3. "...characterised the woman as 'confident and savvy with money'" (bank).

With the information provided, it appears that both PoA and bank knew of dementia / vulnerability. Despite the knowledge though, neither considered it her or their duty to scrutinise banking activity.

Again, it's not clear how long/from when the PoA had been in force.

I believe that PoA should act as soon as empowered to check financial matters on a regular basis. I say this because dementia often removes wise judgment.

If PoA does this, any unusual transaction could be spotted and investigated immediately. Some money could be lost, but the balance might be saved. The account could be stopped / monitored /closed for the benefit of the customer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jersey Girl
The first mistake that the daughter made was trusting the bank to do the right thing and take action aligned with the notation that had been made on her mothers account regarding her vulnerability , the bank really could not give a F****, they are not about protecting their customers, they are running a business and anyone and everyone is there to be a victim
The bank is a business, one that pushes it's staff to serve and not spend a lot of time chatting.
 
Our bank here in WA requires pre notice of withdrawing in cash a large sum e.g more than $2000.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marni
Another view. It was the mother's money. She died after doing whatever she did with it. If that made her last few years happy, so what? Bad luck, those who wanted to inherit it.
 
My sister has dementia and when her son got us together on facebook for a chat she hardly said a anything was vague and restless and just not interested in anything that we said.lf it happened within a few weeks before her demise she would have been showing some of these signs and really not capable.My sisters daughter is her PO and has control of everything. l know my husband who also had dementia was the same.Such a horrible way to go.l feel it really is the daughters fault
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scaveola
The bank is a business, one that pushes it's staff to serve and not spend a lot of time chatting.
Sorry, but from what I’ve read there are no exact dates when dementia was noticed/suspected or advised by a doctor, no exact date of giving of the PoA, no exact date when each transaction took place - none of this. A PoA needs to, usually, give a copy of the document to the bank, the bank needs to make specific notes on the account/file that money withdrawals must be controlled/only withdrawn by persons named or only by the PoA etc. If none of this took place then PoA and bank have questions to answer as to why such large amounts were withdrawn & by whom. My sister and I went through these steps with my mum.
With my own & my husband’s joint account we cannot withdraw more than $3000 a day (from our Australian bank) & we have been queried before one transfer just a few dollars over that amount was being made to our daughter’s account.
I feel there is a lot more to this story than the person is letting on.
 
I use to care for a friend that had onset of dementia,she could manage some thinngs not all . So once a week we'd go to the bank for her to draw out $50 For sort of spending money when I took her out for the. One day when we went to bank she asked for $500 in $10 notes,I was behind her so I tried to quietly say no to teller just $50 so my friend didn't hear.The teller looked at me and said it was the clients perogative to get what she asked for and we walked out with $500 in tens. I contacted her daughter to make sure it didn't happen again
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clancieblue

Join the conversation

News, deals, games, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.

Seniors Discount Club

The SDC searches for the best deals, discounts, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.
  1. New members
  2. Jokes & fun
  3. Photography
  4. Nostalgia / Yesterday's Australia
  5. Food and Lifestyle
  6. Money Saving Hacks
  7. Offtopic / Everything else
  • We believe that retirement should be a time to relax and enjoy life, not worry about money. That's why we're here to help our members make the most of their retirement years. If you're over 60 and looking for ways to save money, connect with others, and have a laugh, we’d love to have you aboard.
  • Advertise with us

User Menu

Enjoyed Reading our Story?

  • Share this forum to your loved ones.
Change Weather Postcode×
Change Petrol Postcode×