In September 2026, we received a heartfelt email from Australia. It marked the end of a difficult journey that had begun with an initial enquiry nearly two years earlier.
“Thank you very much for all the help and support you have provided to me over the past almost two years.”
Our client, whom we will call Mr. L, thanked us for our professionalism, patience and integrity, and for keeping him informed as one complication after another arose. By the time we completed the matter, we had exchanged more than 400 emails relating to the case. Beyond those messages were countless calls, document reviews and visits to banks, police stations, notarial offices, tax authorities and a Beijing university.
We first spoke with Mr. L in 2024. He formally instructed us in December 2025, and we completed the inheritance, domestic transfer and overseas remittance in September 2026. The outcome mattered greatly to him. We would like to share what this case taught us about the practical realities of cross-border inheritance in China.
Mr. L and his family emigrated to Australia in the 1990s and later became Australian citizens. His father and brother passed away in earlier years. His mother, Ms. S, died in Australia in early 2025. Before moving overseas, she had retired from a university in Beijing. She had continued to receive retirement payments in China and left money in Chinese bank accounts. There was also a death-related benefit to claim from her former employer.
Mr. L asked us to help him receive what he was entitled to and transfer the inheritance to Australia. That seemingly straightforward request raised questions about succession law, proof of family relationships, Australian court documents, old Chinese identity and banking records, and procedures for transferring funds overseas.
We began by reviewing the family circumstances, the available assets and the Australian court papers. Mr. L already had an Australian court appointment concerning the administration of his mother’s estate. To save time and expense, we initially explored whether the bank would accept those papers for the relevant deposit. We also identified an entitlement Mr. L had not initially focused on: a death-related benefit from his mother’s former university.
We believe good legal service means more than following a client’s first instruction. It also means identifying lawful entitlements the client may not know to ask about.
Claiming the benefit required paperwork from the university, followed by clearances and stamps from seven departments, including personnel-related offices, the library and the university clinic. We visited the departments in sequence, obtained all seven stamps in a single morning and proceeded with the application that afternoon. Mr. L subsequently received the benefit.
There was no courtroom argument or dramatic hearing—only our careful attention to every step. For a client living overseas, we know that this practical follow-through can make the difference between an entitlement on paper and money actually received.
The bank then asked us for evidence that Ms. S’s Chinese household registration (hukou) had been cancelled. We approached a police station in Beijing’s Xicheng District, only to learn that the family’s registration had been transferred to Dongcheng District many years earlier.
At the Dongcheng station, records from that period were not fully digitised. An initial search of the paper archives found nothing. We returned the following morning and asked for another search. The officers eventually uncovered a further transfer—back to Xicheng. We went there again, located the relevant record and obtained the certificate.
A single sheet of paper had taken us several visits and a search across decades of records. Without it, the bank process could have stopped. We have learned that persistence is often essential to resolving a complex legal problem.
After we submitted the registration certificate and notarised Chinese translations of foreign documents, the bank identified two fresh problems. First, the identification number entered on Ms. S’s old passbook did not match the official registration records. Second, the bank discovered another account linked to a bank card. The Australian court document referred to the passbook but did not identify the card account.
We worked with Ms. S’s former university to clarify the historical account-opening information. We then discussed two possible approaches with Mr. L: seek an amendment to the Australian estate document or complete inheritance notarisation in China for both accounts. After considering timing, expense and the subsequent remittance process together, we agreed to pursue the latter.
We did not revise our initial strategy lightly; the evidence had changed. In our view, sound legal judgment includes knowing when a different route will better protect a client’s interests.
The Chinese notarisation brought another challenge: succession to movable property required consideration of the law of the deceased’s habitual residence at death, making Australian law relevant to our case. We contacted two notarial offices, both of which were cautious about proceeding where foreign law had to be established.
We continued our enquiries and eventually consulted an experienced notary at a third office. After detailed discussions, we agreed on a workable documentary route. We needed death certificates for Mr. L’s father and brother, an Australian lawyer’s legal opinion on succession, and Mr. L’s declarations about his family and inheritance rights.
We checked the documents in coordination with Mr. L and the relevant professionals in Australia, while the necessary notarisation and apostilles were arranged. We then obtained the notary’s bank enquiry letter, confirmed the relevant deposits and submitted the inheritance application. Thanks to the groundwork, the formal application proceeded smoothly. Approximately one month later, the inheritance notarisation certificate was issued.
The certificate did not immediately release the funds. We still needed to resolve the historical identification discrepancy and handle the missing original passbook and bank card. Mr. L had chosen not to mail them internationally because of the risk of loss. We therefore arranged the loss-reporting and replacement procedures, transfer of the inherited funds and account closure.
We arrived before the branch opened. Bank staff repeatedly consulted higher-level reviewers. After four and a half hours at the counter, we finally completed the transfer of the funds from both accounts into Mr. L’s bank account in China.
This was a major milestone, but we knew our client’s objective had not yet been fully achieved. The inheritance still had to reach Australia.
The remittance raised a particular regulatory question because both the deceased and the heir were Australian citizens. China’s Interim Measures for the Administration of the Sale and Payment of Foreign Exchange for the Transfer of Personal Property address certain inheritance-related transfers abroad. Their definition of an “inheritance transfer” does not expressly say that the deceased must have been a Chinese national. It would therefore be inaccurate to assume that every inheritance between two foreign nationals falls outside those Measures solely because of nationality.
In our case, however, the handling bank did not require Mr. L to obtain a separate, prior approval document from the foreign-exchange authority under the inheritance-transfer procedure. Instead, the bank reviewed the supporting materials and ultimately processed the remittance itself. We describe what happened in this case; we do not suggest a blanket exemption for every foreign heir or every cross-border inheritance payment.
What looked to us like a shorter procedure became a demanding review. Without a prior approval document to rely upon, and with little experience of comparable transactions, the bank examined the source of funds, the succession documents, the account history and the compliance aspects of the outward payment with particular care.
Tax-related filing created another obstacle. Because Ms. S’s original accounts had undergone loss-reporting and replacement procedures, the transaction account details did not directly correspond to those in the inheritance documents. The tax authority requested evidence explaining the changes. Our first set of bank transaction records was rejected because some account details were insufficiently clear. We returned to the bank and coordinated retrieval of additional records until we obtained evidence the tax authority accepted.
The bank then requested adjustments to the proposed remittance currency and a change from Mr. L’s Australian joint receiving account to his individual account. We went back to the tax authority to amend the filing information. Further bank review took approximately three weeks. The bank also raised an unusual concern connected with Mr. L’s place of birth and requested an additional written undertaking. We explained this case-specific request to our client, drafted the document and arranged for it to be signed and submitted. After roughly another two weeks, we finally received confirmation that the remittance could proceed.
The next morning, we returned to the bank and completed the outward remittance. The funds finally reached Australia.
For us, the central lesson is simple: the absence of a separate approval step does not necessarily mean an easy payment. Our challenge as lawyers was not only to understand the legal framework, but also to address the bank’s documentary and compliance concerns—without treating every individual request as a universal rule of law.
Once Mr. L received the money, he needed documents explaining its origin and inherited nature for his Australian tax affairs. At his request, we prepared a legal opinion confirming the relevant background and source of the funds. Our opinion was intended to support his dealings with Australian institutions, not to guarantee any particular Australian tax treatment.
When we looked back through our case file, the volume of correspondence struck us: more than 400 emails capturing changes in strategy, searches for old records, coordination across two countries and the patient work of responding to each new documentary request.
“Your professionalism, patience, and integrity have meant a great deal to me throughout this challenging period.”
In his message, Mr. L also expressly thanked Xiujun Bu for her assistance. We were grateful for his words. Throughout the case, we had tried to provide clear communication, practical solutions and reliable support, even when the process refused to follow a straight line.
We understand that, for families living overseas, inheritance is seldom only about a bank balance. It may involve final responsibilities to a loved one, years of family history and the peace of mind that comes from bringing an unfinished matter to a proper close.
We believe professionalism is not merely knowing what the law says. It is applying the law responsibly when facts and procedures become complicated. Dedication is not merely promising to help at the beginning—it is continuing to work carefully when the next unexpected obstacle appears.
Mr. L was able to inherit his mother’s assets and transfer the funds to Australia. For us, the most meaningful recognition came in his simple email of thanks.
Editorial note:
This account is based on actual case records. The client and certain institutions have been anonymised. Banking, tax-related filing and remittance requirements described here are those encountered in this particular matter; the applicable requirements in other cases may differ. This article is for general information and does not constitute legal or tax advice.
Introduction of David Gao
David Gao is a Chinese lawyer with more than 20 years of legal practice experience. He also holds a certificate from the China Accreditation Test for Translators and Interpreters (CATTI). He has a strong command of legal English and is fluent in spoken and written English.
In 2018, Mr. Gao was selected for the Ministry of Justice’s National Talent Pool of 1,000 Lawyers with Foreign-Related Legal Expertise.
Throughout his legal career, Mr. Gao has handled a wide range of foreign-related civil and commercial matters. He has extensive experience in cross-border divorce, international inheritance, foreign-related litigation, and the drafting and review of English-language contracts.
Email: gaohexin@jingsh.com; gaohexin@163.com
Tel/Wechat: +86 136 1115 8067
