Short answer. They can be made to pay double. Under Rule 87, Section 8, a person who, before letters testamentary or of administration are granted, embezzles or alienates money, goods, chattels or effects of the deceased is liable to an action by the executor or administrator for double the value, recovered for the estate's benefit.
What the law says
embezzles or alienates any of the money, goods, chattels, or effects of such deceased, such person shall be liable to an action in favor of the executor or administrator of the estate for double the value of the property sold, embezzled, or alienated
Rule 87, Section 8 — Embezzlement before letters issued. Read the full provision →
What the law says
to be recovered for the benefit of such estate
Rule 87, Section 8 — Embezzlement before letters issued. Read the full provision →
The gap the rule closes
Between a death and the court's grant of letters testamentary or of administration, an estate has no legal caretaker — and that gap is precisely when cash, jewellery, vehicles and documents tend to disappear into a relative's keeping. Rule 87, Section 8 addresses that window directly: a person who, before the granting of letters, embezzles or alienates any of the money, goods, chattels, or effects of such deceased, such person shall be liable to an action in favor of the executor or administrator of the estate for double the value of the property sold, embezzled, or alienated. Helping oneself early is not a head start; it is a liability.
Double the value, as a deterrent
The measure of liability is not restitution of what was taken but twice its value. That is deliberate. If the only consequence of taking estate property were having to give it back when caught, taking it would be a costless gamble; doubling the exposure makes the gamble expensive. The doubled amount is to be recovered for the benefit of such estate — it goes into the common fund that pays the debts and is ultimately divided among all the heirs, not to whichever heir brought the problem to light.
Who sues, and what must be shown
The action belongs to the estate's representative: it runs in favor of the executor or administrator. So the practical first step for aggrieved heirs is to get a settlement proceeding opened and a representative appointed, because that is who has standing under this rule to pursue the relative. The conduct covered is embezzling or alienating — converting the property or passing it to others — and the property covered is the deceased's money, goods, chattels, or effects. Building the case means proving what existed at death, what the relative took or disposed of, and its value, since value is what gets doubled.
If you are the relative holding property
Not every act of safekeeping is embezzlement, and the rule targets those who convert or dispose of estate property, not those who preserve it. If you have taken custody of a deceased parent's effects to secure them, the safe course is to inventory everything, spend or sell nothing, and turn the property over to the executor or administrator once one is appointed. Selling an asset or absorbing the bank balance before letters issue is exactly the conduct the section prices at double. When positions have hardened, both sides need counsel — the heirs to open administration, the holder to regularise custody before it is characterised for them.