Report comment

Please excuse my confusion here.
On the one hand there is Fourteen Years Prison sentence that can be imposed for using " will" in a fraud.
Then there are remits as in the case of the now closed Ajudicator to HM Land Registry, who did not involve themselves in matters of "wills" or " probate, but turned a blind eye to Deputy Adjudicators who allowed " unprobated wills" into evidence.
And then there is no proper guidelines to the parameters to the contents of " wills" whether probated or otherwise as the term
" whatever and wherever" can be stretched to cover all possibilities.
The obvious point in Law is that to leave something in a " will" , one has to first own it.
So why when you can prove no ownership existed, in most cases decisions regarding " wills" ( probated or otherwise) still stand?
There is an obvious need for more background knowledge to be obtained by the person writing a "wil" to ensure no possible confusion follows upon administering the wishes of the maker of a "will" , even to the point of checks to guarantee nothing is overlooked or taken for granted