Who Manages Abandoned Property? Israel, US, Canada and England

Stewards of the Absent: A Comparative Study of the Management and Release of Property of Unknown or Unlocatable Owners – Israel’s Guardian General, the United States, Canada and England

Abstract. This comparative-law article examines how the Guardian General of Israel manages and releases abandoned property, meaning property whose owners are unknown or cannot be located. It compares the Israeli regime with the unclaimed-property (escheat) programs of the United States, the Canadian provincial and federal regimes, and the English bona vacantia and dormant-accounts schemes. Five criteria structure the comparison: management of the property, management fees, publication of managed assets, the duty to search for owners, and ease of release. Key findings: (1) Israel is the only one of the four systems examined here in which a single statutory custodian actively manages real estate and other property of absent owners. (2) Israel charges a statutory management fee: 5% of the total value of the property at the start of management, under the Guardian General (Remuneration) Regulations, 5738-1978. (3) Israel imposes statutory duties to notify, search and publish, namely a five-year search cycle and published notices before property is transferred to State ownership. These duties are tied to the search cycle and to the intended transfer, rather than to a general, regularly updated public register. (4) Release in Israel is by proof of entitlement to the Guardian General, and an owner whose property was transferred to the State may recover the property or its value with interest. Keywords: unclaimed property, abandoned property, escheat, bona vacantia, dormant accounts, Guardian General of Israel, heir hunters, owner tracing, comparative law.

Introduction and Methodological Note

  1. Every legal system accumulates property whose owner is unknown, absent or untraceable: bank balances of customers who stopped transacting, estates of persons who died without known heirs, real estate abandoned after migration or war, and the assets of dissolved companies. Each system must answer the same questions: who holds the property, at what cost to the owner, whether the world is told that the property exists, whether anyone must look for the owner, and how easily the owner (or heir) can recover it.
  2. This article compares the Israeli Guardian General, operating under the Guardian General Law, 5738-1978, with: (i) the American state unclaimed-property (escheat) programs, with emphasis on California, New York and Delaware and on the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act promoted through the Uniform Law Commission and NAUPA; (ii) the Canadian provincial regimes and the federal Bank of Canada unclaimed-balances regime; and (iii) England and Wales, namely the Bona Vacantia Division of the Government Legal Department (formerly the Treasury Solicitor’s Department), the role of the Crown Estate in ownerless land, and the dormant-accounts scheme under the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 and the Reclaim Fund Ltd.
  3. Five criteria structure the comparison: (1) management of the property; (2) management fees and their rate; (3) a duty to publish lists of managed assets; (4) a duty to search for the owners; and (5) the ease of releasing the property to the claimant.
  4. Methodological note. This article is based on the Guardian General Law, 5738-1978 and the Guardian General (Remuneration) Regulations, 5738-1978, as consolidated through 2026, and on published Israeli case law. The description of foreign law reflects the relevant statutes and public administrative practice in each jurisdiction. Figures, time periods and monetary thresholds are amended from time to time, and readers should consult the current official sources.

The Four Regimes in Outline

  1. Israel. The Guardian General is a statutory corporation (section 3 of the Guardian General Law, 5738-1978) charged with managing abandoned property. A decision of the Jerusalem District Court describes an “abandoned property” as one for which no person was found who is both entitled and able to act as owner or manage it, or whose owner is unknown; one of the two alternatives suffices, but the person able to act as owner must also be entitled to do so (Civil Case (Jerusalem District Court) 69833-06-20 Fink v. Guardian General (15.03.2023) (hereinafter: “the Fink case”)). The same court explained that the Guardian General’s powers were designed to enable the location of abandoned property, even after nearly a century, its safeguarding and its management until the owners are found, so that strangers cannot take over private property merely because its owners are absent (the Fink case, per Judge Bar-Asher). The Israeli body is thus a general-purpose custodian: it handles abandoned real estate, estates without known heirs and other property of absentees, and not only monetary balances. Management is ordinarily under a court management order, but property valued at up to NIS 100,000 (index-linked) may be managed without an order (section 7). Management ends when a person proves entitlement to the Guardian General’s satisfaction (section 15(a)). Where the owners are not found, the statute provides for transfer of the property to State ownership after fixed periods, with a right of the owner to recover the property or its value with interest (section 15, subsections (b1) to (d)).
  2. United States. There is no federal custodian. Each state operates its own program, typically through the State Controller, Treasurer or Department of Finance: the California State Controller’s Office under the Unclaimed Property Law (Code of Civil Procedure, s. 1500 et seq.); the New York Office of the State Comptroller (Abandoned Property Law); and the Delaware State Escheator within the Department of Finance (Title 12, ch. 11 of the Delaware Code). Holders (banks, insurers, corporations, employers) must report and remit property after a statutory dormancy period (commonly three to five years, with variations by property type). The state acts as custodian, not owner: the owner’s claim never expires in most states, although the state may use the funds in the interim. Estates without heirs are handled separately by probate and escheat statutes, usually through public administrators.
  3. Canada. The regime is provincial and fragmented. British Columbia (Unclaimed Property Act, 2016, administered through the Unclaimed Property Society), Alberta (Unclaimed Personal Property and Vested Property Act), Quebec (Revenu Québec as administrator of unclaimed property) and Saskatchewan, Manitoba and others have varying schemes; Ontario, historically, has had no general unclaimed-property statute for corporate holdings and relies on the Crown’s escheat powers and the Public Guardian and Trustee for estates without known heirs. At the federal level, under the Bank Act, federally regulated banks must transfer to the Bank of Canada balances in accounts that have been inactive for a statutory period (ten years), and the Bank of Canada maintains them in a searchable registry and pays claimants.
  4. England and Wales. Three distinct mechanisms operate. (a) The Bona Vacantia Division of the Government Legal Department administers, on behalf of the Crown (and, for their territories, the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall), estates of persons who die intestate without known kin entitled under the Administration of Estates Act 1925, and the assets of dissolved companies. (b) The Crown Estate handles certain ownerless land, notably freehold property that passes to the Crown by escheat on the disclaimer of a company’s property under the Companies Act 2006. (c) Under the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008, participating institutions transfer dormant balances (generally dormant for fifteen years) to the Reclaim Fund Ltd, while remaining liable to repay the customer; surplus funds are distributed for social purposes. The Dormant Assets Act 2022 extended the scheme to insurance, pensions, investment and securities assets.

Comparative Table

  1. Criterion 1 – Management of the property. Israel: active custodial management by a statutory corporation, via management orders, including rent collection and safeguarding of real estate. USA: passive custody; holders remit cash, securities are often liquidated after a period (varies by state) and the state holds the value. Canada: provincial custody for most property; the Bank of Canada holds cash balances only. England: Bona Vacantia collects and realizes estate assets, then holds proceeds; the Reclaim Fund holds cash and operates as a funding conduit; the Crown Estate manages certain land.
  2. Criterion 2 – Fees. Israel: under regulation 1(a) of the Guardian General (Remuneration) Regulations, 5738-1978, the fee is 5% of the total value of the managed property at the start of management, collected at the start; an annual 0.5% of the value of funds invested by the Guardian General; 3% of the consideration for a real-estate transaction carried out by the Guardian General; and 2.5% for property deposited in the fund established under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. Under regulation 2A, in a specified case, a fee collected is returned if the property is handed to the entitled person within a year. The fee and the management expenses are charged to the property itself (section 12 of the Law), and the Supreme Court has confirmed the entitlement to remuneration (CA 395/80). USA: no fee to claim property from the state; fees arise only if the claimant uses a private “finder” or heir-hunter, and many states cap such fees (California 10%; New York 15%; Delaware). Canada: no fee charged by the Bank of Canada to claimants; provincial schemes generally charge none. England: Bona Vacantia may deduct its costs of administration from estates; dormant-account claims are free via the institution; heir-hunters customarily charge percentage fees (often cited between 10% and 25%).
  3. Criterion 3 – Publication. Israel: the Guardian General must publish, once every five years from the start of management of each property, a notice on the Ministry of Justice website stating the type of property and the name of its last known owner (section 9(a)(1)). Before transferring property to State ownership it must publish notice of its intention on its website for at least the statutory period, inviting claims (section 15(c1)(1)(a)). Every six months it must publish a notice in three national daily newspapers, indicating that lists of the properties intended for transfer and of the names of the rights-holders may be inspected on its website (section 15(c4)). USA: public searchable state databases and the multi-state portal associated with NAUPA (missingmoney.com); holders must send due-diligence notices before remitting (the thresholds, such as the amount triggering a mailed notice, vary by state). Canada: online search registries (Bank of Canada; provincial sites). England: the Bona Vacantia list of unclaimed estates is published online and updated regularly; dormant-account holders notify customers before transfer.
  4. Criterion 4 – Duty to search. Israel: duties exist at three levels. First, any person holding abandoned property, or property that he has reason to believe is abandoned, and any public employee who learns of such property in the course of his duties, must notify the Guardian General (section 5(a)). Second, the Guardian General must investigate (section 5(b)) and, at least every five years from the start of management, must initiate an investigation to locate the rights-holders, including inquiries with the Population and Immigration Authority and the Registrar of Inheritance (section 9(a)(2)). Third, before transfer to State ownership it must act with reasonable diligence and approach, among others, the Population Administration, the Registrar of Inheritance, the tax authorities and the National Insurance Institute, and report to the court (section 15(c1)(1)(b) and (d)). USA: the primary duty is on the holder, which must conduct due diligence and mail a notice to the last known address; the state may add proactive matching programs in some states (for example California’s use of agency data). Canada: duty falls on banks, which must notify before transfer; the Bank of Canada does not track owners. England: Bona Vacantia makes enquiries into kin and may instruct genealogists in appropriate estates; institutions must attempt to reunite customers with accounts before transfer to Reclaim Fund.
  5. Criterion 5 – Ease of release. Israel: the Guardian General manages property until a person appears and proves, to the Guardian General’s satisfaction, that he is entitled to receive it (section 15(a)), so an uncontested claim needs no court order; contested claims, and the closing of a court-ordered management, require a court proceeding, as the case law below shows. Where the property was transferred to State ownership, the owner may choose between the property itself and its value on the date of transfer with interest, after deduction of management expenses (section 15(d)). The process is documentary and potentially slow. USA: generally simple online claims with documentary proof; larger or estate-related claims require more documentation. Canada: relatively simple online claims to the Bank of Canada with identity documents. England: dormant-account claims go through the original bank and are straightforward; estate claims through Bona Vacantia require proof of kinship and may be time-limited.

Analysis by Criterion

  1. (a) Management of the property. The decisive difference is functional. The Israeli Guardian General is an active manager of a broad range of property, including real estate, and its role is defined in the framework terms of the statute: managing the property under its supervision and doing with it what may, in its opinion, benefit those interested. The Supreme Court described this role as covering a wide spectrum of acts, from specific actions on the property to mere supervision (CA 395/80 Guardian General v. Pargion (1981), as cited in Class Action 1508-04-17 Man-Dali v. Guardian General (Tel Aviv District Court, 02.11.2021)). By contrast, American state programs and the Bank of Canada are primarily custodians of cash and securities; they do not manage real estate and do not seek to preserve a business. The English Bona Vacantia Division sits between the two: it administers estates, selling assets and distributing or holding proceeds, but it does not engage in long-term management of property for absent owners.
  2. This active role has a strong rationale in Israel, where abandoned real estate is a salient problem. In the Fink case, the occupants of a property sought to be recognised as owners after many decades; the court rejected the claim, reasoning that the purpose of the law is exactly to prevent a situation in which others take over property merely because its owners are absent. Custodial models of the American type would offer no equivalent protection for land, which is typically handled by adverse possession, tax-sale and escheat doctrines at state level.
  3. (b) Fees. Israel is the system among the four in which a fixed statutory management fee is most explicitly built into the framework. The Supreme Court held that the Guardian General is entitled to remuneration for the whole range of management activities, and that it would be illogical to grant a fee only for certain acts (CA 395/80, cited above). The regulations set the main rate at 5% of the total value of the property at the start of management, with additional rates for investment (0.5% annually) and for real-estate transactions (3%). Because the main fee is calculated on total value and collected up front, it can be substantial relative to small estates. The American and Canadian programs do not charge the owner a fee for the return of unclaimed property; their funding comes from the use of the funds (including, in some states, investment income and the retention of unclaimed value in the general fund) and from budgetary allocations. This creates a conceptual difference: in Israel the owner bears the cost of active stewardship, while elsewhere the state bears the cost of passive custody and may benefit from the float. Any proposed reform should be modelled on the actual percentages set out above.
  4. A subtle issue is the commercial “finder” industry. In the United States and England private heir-hunters exist because publication is incomplete or because owners do not search; they charge percentages (often capped by statute in U.S. states). The better the public system’s publication and outreach, the smaller the need for intermediaries. The fee burden on owners is therefore a function not only of the official fee but of the effectiveness of the official search.
  5. (c) Publication. The United States and England have the most developed public-facing databases (state websites, multi-state portals, and the Bona Vacantia list). Canada has a federal registry for bank balances and provincial registries of varying quality. Israel does have statutory publication duties: a notice every five years for each managed property, a notice before transfer to State ownership, and a half-yearly newspaper notice pointing to website lists. However, these duties are tied to the five-year search cycle and to the intended transfer. The provisions reviewed do not require a comprehensive, regularly updated public register of all managed assets, with a defined threshold, comparable to the English list. Publication serves two functions: it is a means of locating owners, and it is a safeguard against abuse by the custodian itself, since a public list exposes how long an asset has been held.
  6. (d) Duty to search. A distinctive feature of the American regime is the shift of the initial burden to the holder: statutes oblige holders to conduct due diligence and send a notice before transferring property to the state. The Bank Act regime in Canada and the English dormant-accounts scheme adopt a similar approach. Israel places a partial duty on holders and public employees, but it is a duty to notify the Guardian General (section 5(a)), not a duty of due diligence directed at the owner before transfer. The principal search burden lies on the public custodian, who must repeat the search every five years and perform a documented, reasonable-diligence search before transferring property to the State; the case law likewise stresses its power to find owners even after a very long time (the Fink case). Israel’s duty is therefore detailed in its procedure, including the bodies that must be approached, but it lacks the owner-directed upstream due-diligence layer found in the U.S. provisions. A model combining both layers – an upstream duty on the holder and a downstream duty on the custodian – appears optimal.
  7. (e) Ease of release. In the American and Canadian cash-based regimes, release is an administrative process, often online, with standardised proof of identity and entitlement. In England, dormant-account claims are made through the original institution, which remains liable and is reimbursed by the Reclaim Fund, so the owner deals with a familiar counterparty. In Israel, an owner who proves entitlement to the Guardian General receives the property without a court order (section 15(a)). Where the property is a parcel of land with disputed title or a complex estate, release often requires evidentiary proof of entitlement and sometimes judicial determination; the court’s approach in the Fink case shows that claimants who assert ownership must prove it against the background of a strong statutory presumption in favour of continued management. The difference is partly justified by the nature of the property, but it also suggests room for a fast track for small monetary balances.

Critical Evaluation

  1. Strengths of the Israeli model: breadth (all types of property), an active duty of stewardship, a detailed statutory search cycle with defined bodies to be approached, a statutory right of the owner to recover the value with interest even after transfer to the State, and a legal culture that protects owners against third-party takeover. Weaknesses: the fee structure (5% of total value collected up front) may erode small estates; publication is tied to the search cycle and to the intended transfer rather than to a comprehensive public register; there is no owner-directed upstream due-diligence duty on holders; and there is no clear separation between low-value cash assets, for which a mass automated process is suitable, and complex assets requiring individual treatment.
  2. Strengths of the American model: a strong holder-reporting regime, uniform statutory template (the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act), and a cheap, accessible claims process. Weaknesses: the state’s financial interest in retaining unclaimed funds (a recognised conflict of interest, which has led to litigation and audit controversies); inconsistency between states; and a passive attitude toward non-monetary property.
  3. Canadian model: the Bank of Canada registry is a good example of a centralised, simple solution for one asset class, but the provincial landscape is fragmented, which makes it harder for an owner to know where to search. English model: the Reclaim Fund design, under which the holder stays liable to repay claims while the funds are directed to public benefit, is innovative and reduces the risk that owners are disadvantaged; the Bona Vacantia list is transparent. Weaknesses: the complexity of three separate bodies and dependence on private heir-hunters for estates.

Recommendations for Israel

  1. First, supplement the existing publication duties of the Guardian General by a duty to maintain and update a public, searchable register of all managed property, with defined publication thresholds and an obligation to report periodically on the number and value of assets and the time they have been held, following the English and American examples.
  2. Second, build on the existing duty of holders to notify the Guardian General (section 5(a)) by introducing a two-layer search duty: an upstream duty on institutions that hold property for unknown owners (banks, insurers, pension funds) to conduct due diligence directed at the owner before transfer, as in the Uniform Act, together with the existing downstream duty on the Guardian General to conduct reasonable and documented searches, including cross-checking with government databases.
  3. Third, reconsider the fee structure for small estates and passive monetary balances: a fee exemption or reduced rate for low-value assets, or a flat cap, so that the 5% fee collected at the start of management cannot absorb the property of owners who are later found.
  4. Fourth, create a streamlined, online claims procedure for cash balances below a threshold, with standardised proof of identity and kinship, reserving judicial involvement for disputed or real-estate claims.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How easily can an owner recover property from the Israeli Guardian General?

A: An owner who proves entitlement to the Guardian General’s satisfaction receives the property without a court order, and disputed claims are decided by the court. If the property was transferred to State ownership, the owner may recover the property or its value on the transfer date with interest, after deduction of management expenses (section 15 of the Guardian General Law, 5738-1978).

Q: Who must search for the owners of unclaimed property?

A: In the United States, Canada and England the initial duty usually rests on the holder (bank, insurer or company), which must notify the owner before transfer. In Israel, holders and public employees must notify the Guardian General, who must then search at least every five years and perform a documented search before transferring property to State ownership.

Q: Does the Israeli Guardian General charge a management fee?

A: Yes. Under the Guardian General (Remuneration) Regulations, 5738-1978, the main fee is 5% of the total value of the managed property at the start of management, with 0.5% annually on invested funds and 3% on real-estate transactions. The United States and Canada generally charge owners no fee to reclaim unclaimed property.

Q: What is the difference between the Israeli Guardian General and US state unclaimed-property programs?

A: The Israeli Guardian General actively manages all types of abandoned property, including real estate, for a fee. US state programs are mainly passive custodians of cash and securities reported by holders, and they generally charge the owner nothing for reclaiming the property.

Conclusion

The comparison shows that Israel’s Guardian General is the most comprehensive of the four models in the range of property it manages and in its active custodial role. It has detailed statutory search and notice duties, but it lags behind the American, Canadian and English regimes in the existence of a comprehensive public register, the absence of an owner-directed upstream due-diligence duty on holders, and the simplicity of release for small claims. The American holder-diligence model, the English Reclaim Fund design and the Bank of Canada registry offer useful building blocks for reform.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The law, figures and time periods discussed, including those of foreign jurisdictions, may change and are described in general terms as of the date of publication. Readers should obtain advice from a qualified lawyer before acting on any specific matter.

Compare how Israel's Guardian General manages and releases abandoned property with the US, Canada and England: fees, publication, owner search.