Read the above article in text format below:
Once upon a time, there was a kingdom of hardworking but forgetful people. They saved diligently and, by custom, entrusted their wealth to jewellers in the form of gold jewellery. Some inscribed their full names on the items. Others marked only their initials.
Most returned to reclaim their jewellery. But a sizeable number moved away, forgot, or passed away without informing their heirs. Over time, the price of gold soared. What were once modest deposits became items of considerable value. Some jewellers began treating the unclaimed jewellery as their own.
Alarmed, the King ordered all such items transferred to the royal treasury, along with a list describing each piece and its markings. The stated intent: Return them to rightful owners or heirs — provided they could identify the item and prove ownership.
But therein lay the problem. Most people did not know what had been deposited, or by whom. Heirs had no idea what their parents or grandparents had left behind. Citizens demanded that the lists be published so they could search and investigate. Treasury officials resisted. Publishing the list, they feared, could lead to fraud — false claims by those who knew just enough to be dangerous.
The people countered: If verification was robust, why fear fraud? And weren’t frauds already happening—just quietly, behind the scenes? Treasury officials replied, “Yes, but at least we are not being blamed for them now.”
And so the arguments continued. The unclaimed jewellery, now worth more, remained untouched in the vaults—trapped by secrecy and fear, far from those who truly owned them.
From fable to fact
This is no fairytale. As of financial year 2024, over ₹1.96 trillion of unclaimed financial assets lie scattered across India’s financial system — bank deposits, small savings, Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) accounts, life insurance policies, mutual fund units, and shares transferred to the Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF). (Source: https://bit.ly/42RA5kI).
While regulators worry about fraud, the real issue is this: heirs often don’t know what to claim — because they don’t know what exists. Except for IEPF to a limited extent, Indian systems do not allow name-based searches. The result? The unclaimed stays unclaimed.
Contrast this with global best practices. In the US and Australia, platforms allow searches using just a name. Australia’s Moneysmart.gov.au even suggests trying only a surname, or common misspellings like O’Sullivan vs OSullivan. A search for “Robert Smith” will yield results like “Robert James Smith” or “Smith Robert”. These platforms empower users — while still requiring proper verification before releasing funds.
In India, only IEPF nominally allows a name search — via a beta feature that rarely works. UDGAM (for bank deposits) and MITRA (for mutual funds) require users to know something exists before revealing data. For insurance, EPF, and small savings, the search options are scattered or non-existent.
This opacity ensures few know what lies in their name — or their parents’. Even those who manage to trace assets face bureaucratic nightmares. The process is slow, fragmented, and intimidating. Meanwhile, the Finance Minister’s Budget 2023 promise of an integrated portal remains unfulfilled.
A Supreme Court-appointed committee has endorsed Moneylife Foundation’s proposal for a Central Unclaimed Property Authority (CUPA). The committee emphasised the need for a centralised, searchable database to reconnect assets with rightful owners.
Truth be told, a functional name-based search is key to reducing the mountain of unclaimed assets. A dedicated authority like CUPA — focused solely on returning these assets — would be better positioned to overcome the psychological resistance that existing regulators have, to enabling name-based searches.
Once people realise unclaimed wealth exists in their name — or in the names of lost relatives — they will demand better refund processes and accountability. Only then is there a real chance that the mountain of unclaimed assets will begin to shrink.
The real question: will CUPA be rolled out as a follow-through to the FM’s promise — or will we have to wait for the Supreme Court’s final word?
The writer heads Fee-Only Investment Advisors LLP, a Sebi-registered investment advisor; X (formerly Twitter): @harshroongta
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
(A slightly different version of this column first appeared in the Business Standard on April 21, 2025)