This Dementia Action Week, we are shining a light on an issue that affects thousands of families across the UK: the misappropriation of assets from people living with dementia.
According to the Alzheimer’s Society every three minutes someone in the UK develops dementia and 1 in 3 people born in the UK today will go on to develop dementia in their lifetime. As of 31 July 2025, 506,549 patients in England had a recorded diagnosis of dementia, an increase of 3,179 patients in a single month.
Dementia is a devastating disease. It affects cognitive function in ways that can make a person significantly more susceptible to financial exploitation and abuse. Whether carried out by strangers, acquaintances, or even trusted family members, the misappropriation of a person’s assets is a form of abuse that can have detrimental and lasting consequences. Sadly, in our experience, the majority of allegations of financial abuse and misappropriation of monies against vulnerable individuals are against the very people trusted to look after their affairs.
What is misappropriation of assets?
Misappropriation of assets, sometimes referred to as financial abuse, occurs when someone takes, uses, or controls another person’s money, property, or possessions without their informed consent or legal authority to do so.
This can take many forms, including:
- Theft: taking cash, jewellery, or other valuables
- Fraud: forging signatures or deceiving a person into signing documents
- Undue influence: pressuring or manipulating a vulnerable person into changing their will, transferring property, or making gifts
- Misuse of a Power of Attorney: an attorney acting outside their legal authority or in their own interests rather than the donor’s
- Exploitation of joint accounts: withdrawing funds for personal use without authorisation
- Predatory marriages: entering into marriage with a vulnerable person to gain access to their estate
Real life examples
Many of these instances of financial abuse go undiscovered or not pursued however, in some cases they end up in legal proceedings before the Court. Here, we look at a few examples and the facts which gave rise to the proceedings.
- A case heard in the Family Court around the validity of a marriage, X v A [2021], involved a marriage between an elderly woman and a much younger man who had acted as her nurse which was voidable by reason of duress and unsoundness of mind.
Y was an elderly woman living in a house owned by her in the UK. She was a Lebanese national and regularly visited Lebanon where she met X. X arrived in the UK in 2018 on a tourist visa and Y took him into her home. They married in secret in 2019 and Y transferred 50% of her property to X. According to the judgment, X had told Y not to tell her family about the marriage and Y had borrowed money in the form of bank loans to transfer sums of money to X.
When her family discovered what had happened, they claimed that X had coerced her into the marriage. In 2020, Y was diagnosed with dementia and an expert opined that she would have had undiagnosed dementia at the time of the marriage and she was unlikely to have had capacity to consent to the marriage.
The court found that X’s controlling and coercive behaviour evidenced a case of elder abuse which was facilitated and exacerbated by reason of Y’s as then undiagnosed dementia. There was evidence that X had gained access to Y’s bank account and the court also found that Y had lacked capacity to authorise the transfer of half the property to X.
- The recent case of Ginger v Mickleburgh [2026] involved the challenge to the validity of a will made by Mr Gwilliam. Mr Gwilliam suffered from dementia, amongst other illnesses, as a result of which he also suffered from delusional beliefs.
The court pronounced against the will in question on the basis that Mr Gwilliam lacked testamentary capacity. The background to the claim involved allegations around coercion and misappropriation of assets.
Mr Gwilliam had four daughters. By all accounts, he had no particular desire to make a will and, when he did have testamentary intentions, they were straightforward: he wanted to benefit all of his daughters equally. Yet the will he ultimately executed left his estate largely to his sister Sheila and her son, Robert with only minor provision for his daughters.
Mr Gwilliam’s health deteriorated over a number of years. One of his daughters raised concerns during that time that he had become paranoid and deluded. Sheila and Robert become central figures in his life at this time and in 2018 Mr Gwilliam executed a lasting power of attorney in favour of Sheila and Robert. The daughters also sought to claim that the will had been procured by fraudulent calumny by Sheila poisoning his mind against the daughters. Helen had accused Sheila of financial misappropriation and the OPG had carried out an investigation but found no wrongdoing.
The court found that Mr Gwilliam believed that his daughters were part of a wrongful conspiracy to have him sectioned under the Mental Health Act but they were in fact trying to ensure that he received proper and appropriate care. The daughters claimed that Sheila and/or another defendant, Joan knew that Mr Gwilliam was delusional and that the daughters were seeking to do their best for him but made statements to the contrary to Mr Gwilliam or alternatively they were reckless as to whether their statements to the contrary were false. The court found that Sheila was certainly motivated by the desire to divert Mr Gwilliam’s estate from his daughters and that the statements she made were made for the purpose of inducing him to make a will that disinherited his daughters. Motivation alone, however, was insufficient for the fraudulent calumny claim.
- In Blythe v Blythe [2023], a daughter challenged a £200,000 lifetime transfer made by her deceased father Roland, who had been diagnosed with borderline dementia, on grounds of lack of capacity and undue influence. The £200,000 was transferred to one of Roland’s other daughters, said by her to be made so she could buy a property. She gave evidence that Roland had asked her to take him to the bank where he had a private meeting and transferred the money.
Her sister gave evidence that Roland suffered from confusion at times and had been diagnosed with borderline dementia. She also claimed that as the transfer was for such a large amount in comparison to the rest of Roland’s estate it was a transfer that called for an explanation.
The court ultimately found that the transfer was a gift and the Roland had capacity to make it, finding that there was not enough evidence to satisfy the burden of proof. Although the court ultimately found in favour of the transfer, the case demonstrates the scrutiny applied to substantial gifts made by persons with dementia. However, it is also an important reminder that a diagnosis of dementia does not in and of itself mean that a person does not have capacity to make certain financial transactions.
Financial abuse of people living with dementia is probably far more common than many people realise, and it can happen in even the most loving and well-intentioned families. By understanding the risks, recognising the warning signs, and putting the right legal protections in place, there are steps people can take to protect themselves and their loved ones.
about the author
Sophie is a Senior Associate in the Dispute Resolution team. She specialises in trust, estate and court of protection disputes, often acting in high value and complex cases.