After the elder's death, the other children demanded an equal division of this money. The younger son claimed the funds were voluntarily given by the elder and had already been spent. Judicial standards are clear: deposits voluntarily disposed of by the elder while alive are protected by law, and no one has the right to interfere. However, funds withdrawn without authorization after the elder's death constitute part of the estate, and any heir who made such unauthorized withdrawals must return their corresponding share to the other heirs.

  The point in time serves as a qualitative dividing line. Pursuant to Article 1122 of the Civil Code, an estate comprises the lawful personal property left by a natural person at the time of their death. While the elder is alive, any bank deposits belong solely to them, and they retain the right to dispose of such funds freely—whether by gifting them to a particular child, covering medical expenses, or for daily consumption. Provided these dispositions are made with genuine voluntariness, other children have no right to demand restitution, nor may they later seek recourse on the grounds that they received a smaller share of the estate. Key evidence for determining voluntariness includes the elder's mental state at the relevant time, the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal, and the context in which the password was disclosed.

  Upon the death of an elder, the nature of their bank deposits fundamentally changes, becoming joint heritage owned by all heirs. At this point, no single heir has the right to unilaterally withdraw or transfer funds; any private act of cash withdrawal, fund transfer, or expenditure infringes upon the co-ownership rights of the other heirs. Even if an heir possesses the bank card and password, this does not confer legal authority to withdraw funds; the password serves merely as a technical credential, not as authorization for disposition. Other heirs may file a lawsuit regarding inheritance disputes, demanding that the unauthorized withdrawer return their corresponding share. If the amount involved is substantial, such conduct may constitute embezzlement, exposing the perpetrator to criminal liability.

  In judicial practice, the handling of two key disputed issues is as follows: First, regarding withdrawals made by an elderly person shortly before death, heirs claiming a gift must prove the existence of a mutual agreement to gift. Where only withdrawal records exist without evidence of the elderly person's clear intent to gift—such as written confirmation obtained under conditions of unimpeded communication or testimony from witnesses present at the time—courts typically characterize such withdrawals as custodial arrangements on behalf of the deceased, thereby including them in the estate for division. Second, if withdrawals were used for reasonable expenses related to the elderly person's medical care, funeral arrangements, or nursing, such amounts may be deducted from the estate upon presentation of supporting receipts and shall not be deemed misappropriation; any remaining balance must still be divided among the heirs. Other heirs should promptly apply to the court to obtain bank transaction records to establish the chronological relationship between the timing of withdrawals and the date of the elderly person's death, and gather evidence such as medical records and documentation attesting to the elderly person's mental capacity to validate their ability to dispose of assets. If asset transfers are discovered, they may simultaneously apply for property preservation measures.

  In serious cases, unauthorized appropriation may cross into criminal liability. If an heir, with the intent of illegal possession, secretly transfers, conceals, or misappropriates the portion of the estate to which other heirs are entitled, and the amount is substantial while refusing to return it, this may constitute the crime of embezzlement. Other heirs may file a private prosecution in court to hold the responsible party accountable. This legal pathway serves as a strong deterrent against those who refuse to return improperly taken assets. In practice, most such disputes are resolved through civil litigation. If a court orders restitution and the defendant still refuses to comply, the aggrieved parties may apply for compulsory enforcement, including the freezing and deduction of assets held in the defendant's name. Where necessary, evidence of non-compliance may be referred to investigative authorities for further action. A decedent's voluntary disposition of property during their lifetime is protected by law; however, any unauthorized withdrawal of deposits after death must be returned. Using the time of death as the dividing line and relying on evidence, other heirs are legally entitled to recover their rightful shares.