Your super could end up in the wrong hands—how one abuser inherited it all
- Replies 0
Warning: This article contains details of domestic violence and suicide.
Molly Wilkes was only 22 when she died in Las Vegas, far from home and far from safety.
Her mother, Julie Adams, later learned that not even Molly’s death would free her from the control of her abuser.
Instead, superannuation laws handed him her savings.
Julie Adams told a federal inquiry that her daughter had endured emotional, physical, sexual and financial abuse throughout her short marriage.
Molly tried to leave her husband six times after they wed in January 2021, but isolation, fear and manipulation always pulled her back.
In the final week of her life, she had packed her bags—only for her abuser to escalate his threats and psychological torment when he discovered her plans.
Molly died by suicide on 28 July 2022 in the home they shared in the United States.
Her mother wrote that Molly faced death threats in those last weeks, exhausted and unable to escape.
Despite the history of abuse, the law ensured that Molly’s superannuation went to her husband.
Under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, only dependants defined by the legislation and trust deed could inherit.
Because Molly had no binding death benefit nomination and no will, her abuser became the sole eligible beneficiary.
HESTA, her fund, confirmed it had no option but to pay out to him in December 2023.
‘Despite my many attempts to change this outcome, the HESTA trustees had no option but to pay out Molly's superannuation and death benefit to her abuser,’ Ms Adams told the inquiry.
HESTA said it supported urgent law reform, arguing the current system failed to protect victims of family violence.
The Super Members Council (SMC) also urged change, calling it a ‘glaring injustice’ that abusers could profit from the very people they harmed.
Research by Super Consumers Australia showed at least 6.5 million Australians had not nominated who should receive their superannuation.
That meant millions risked their savings defaulting to someone they may not have intended.
Only one quarter of surveyed members reported having a binding nomination in place.
Ms Adams noted that every fund had different rules around death benefit nominations, creating inconsistency across the industry.
She argued that stronger witnessing requirements and a ‘change of circumstances rule’ could allow trustees to reject nominations in cases involving abuse.
She also called for the ‘forfeiture rule’—which prevents killers from benefiting from their victim’s estate—to be extended to superannuation, which often sits outside an estate.
Beyond superannuation, Ms Adams said financial products must be redesigned to prevent perpetrators from exploiting them.
She pointed to a national initiative launched in 2024 where banks, insurers and major companies updated their terms to block misuse linked to financial abuse.
‘These types of clauses ensure domestic abuse victim-survivors can access claim payouts and are not prejudiced by the acts of another policyholder,’ she said.
This heartbreaking case also shines a light on a wider problem—many people may not realise they have little control over who actually inherits their super.
Without the right nomination in place, funds can be forced to follow strict legal definitions that don’t always reflect someone’s true intentions.
A recent report revealed just how widespread this issue really is.
Read more: Millions of Australians will have no say in who inherits their superannuation
Losing Molly was devastating for her family—but losing her savings to her abuser was a final injustice they are now fighting to ensure no other victim’s family endures.
Molly Wilkes was only 22 when she died in Las Vegas, far from home and far from safety.
Her mother, Julie Adams, later learned that not even Molly’s death would free her from the control of her abuser.
Instead, superannuation laws handed him her savings.
Julie Adams told a federal inquiry that her daughter had endured emotional, physical, sexual and financial abuse throughout her short marriage.
Molly tried to leave her husband six times after they wed in January 2021, but isolation, fear and manipulation always pulled her back.
In the final week of her life, she had packed her bags—only for her abuser to escalate his threats and psychological torment when he discovered her plans.
A story of freedom cut short. Image source: Pexels/Kindel Media | Disclaimer: This is a stock image used for illustrative purposes only and does not depict the actual person, item, or event described.
Molly died by suicide on 28 July 2022 in the home they shared in the United States.
Her mother wrote that Molly faced death threats in those last weeks, exhausted and unable to escape.
Despite the history of abuse, the law ensured that Molly’s superannuation went to her husband.
Under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, only dependants defined by the legislation and trust deed could inherit.
Because Molly had no binding death benefit nomination and no will, her abuser became the sole eligible beneficiary.
HESTA, her fund, confirmed it had no option but to pay out to him in December 2023.
‘Despite my many attempts to change this outcome, the HESTA trustees had no option but to pay out Molly's superannuation and death benefit to her abuser,’ Ms Adams told the inquiry.
HESTA said it supported urgent law reform, arguing the current system failed to protect victims of family violence.
The Super Members Council (SMC) also urged change, calling it a ‘glaring injustice’ that abusers could profit from the very people they harmed.
Research by Super Consumers Australia showed at least 6.5 million Australians had not nominated who should receive their superannuation.
That meant millions risked their savings defaulting to someone they may not have intended.
Only one quarter of surveyed members reported having a binding nomination in place.
Ms Adams noted that every fund had different rules around death benefit nominations, creating inconsistency across the industry.
She argued that stronger witnessing requirements and a ‘change of circumstances rule’ could allow trustees to reject nominations in cases involving abuse.
She also called for the ‘forfeiture rule’—which prevents killers from benefiting from their victim’s estate—to be extended to superannuation, which often sits outside an estate.
Beyond superannuation, Ms Adams said financial products must be redesigned to prevent perpetrators from exploiting them.
She pointed to a national initiative launched in 2024 where banks, insurers and major companies updated their terms to block misuse linked to financial abuse.
‘These types of clauses ensure domestic abuse victim-survivors can access claim payouts and are not prejudiced by the acts of another policyholder,’ she said.
This heartbreaking case also shines a light on a wider problem—many people may not realise they have little control over who actually inherits their super.
Without the right nomination in place, funds can be forced to follow strict legal definitions that don’t always reflect someone’s true intentions.
A recent report revealed just how widespread this issue really is.
Read more: Millions of Australians will have no say in who inherits their superannuation
Losing Molly was devastating for her family—but losing her savings to her abuser was a final injustice they are now fighting to ensure no other victim’s family endures.
