A convicted murderer can never inherit their victim's estate.

But things become less cut and dry when it's someone who covers up the killer's crime.

Last month, it was reported in WA Today that Tiffany Wan, the daughter of murdered Perth woman Annabelle Chen, could potentially inherit her mother's multi-million-dollar estate.

That's despite the fact that Wan was found guilty of being an accessory after the fact to her mother's murder in 2016.

Ah Ping Ban, Ms Chen's former husband, was found guilty of the 'body-in-a-suitcase' murder and sentenced to 20 years' jail.

Wan was found to have helped her father cover up the crime, for example by removing footprints from her mother's home.

She was sentenced to four years and 10 months in jail, and could be released on parole as early as next month.

So was her involvement significant enough that she should lose her inheritance?

Barrister John Hockley tells RN's Law Report the situation is "not clear at the moment".

"There really hasn't been any direct precedents to follow," he says.

But, he says, there's "a possibility that the daughter could benefit from [Ms Chen's] estate".

'Not as clear-cut as people think'

Mr Hockley says a court would need to consider Wan's level of culpability when assessing if she should have access to her mother's estate.

"It appears that [Wan] did quite a bit," he says.

"She told persistent lies to the police. She knew her mother was dead. It appears that her involvement may have been quite significant."

Sorry, this audio has expired Can a killer inherit the estate of their victim?

Mr Hockley says Wan's case raises an interesting question — one that doesn't have a simple answer.

"Is she the sort of person that should benefit from her mother's estate or should the forfeiture rule extend to cover her?"

Barrister and solicitor Craig Gregson, who specialises in succession law, says the fact that Wan "wasn't the one who did the murder" is highly relevant to the question of whether she should be prevented from inheriting.

He says it's worth considering, for example, that after being released from jail there is high chance Wan will be under financial stress.

"Hypothetically, should she be going on a social security benefit? Should the taxpayer fund this person who's committed this offence when the deceased died with sufficient assets to make provision for her?

"It's not as clear-cut as people think."

He says other relevant considerations are whether an alleged perpetrator was found not mentally fit to plea, was a victim of family abuse, or was too young to understand the consequences of their actions.

Complex cases 'polarising' people

Mr Hockley says estate forfeiture is "an area of the law where people's views are polarised".

"People are outraged when they hear, 'This person has committed a serious offence and they've gone to prison; how dare they inherit anything at all from the estates of their parents'. But there are other, broader issues," he says.

Mr Hockley says the 2014 case of Margaret and Ian Settree provides another example of the complex nature of forfeiture cases.

The Settrees, who lived in the small NSW town of Cobar, were killed by their adult son Scott Settree, who admitted to the killings but was found not guilty.

"Scott killed his parents and he admitted to intending to kill his parents, and it was found that he was not guilty by reason of mental illness," Mr Hockley says.

However, the executor of the Settrees' will and the couple's other child, Wendy Robinson, successfully applied to the NSW courts for the forfeiture rule to apply in this case.

"They looked at his culpability in great detail ... and there was an element of premeditation. He had contemplated his parents' deaths to the benefit of himself," Mr Hockley says.

Then, the matter came before the NSW Supreme Court, where it was decided that the Forfeiture Act applied — but with conditions.

"That allowed Scott to obtain $50,000 from each of the parents' estates and these funds would be held on trust by the NSW trustee and guardian," Mr Hockley says.

He says "doing justice to Scott" was a factor in the judge's decision, as well as applying the forfeiture rule.

Ms Robinson disagrees with the judge's decision.

"He's awarded my brother $100,000 ... and I've been ordered to pay his legal costs," she told A Current Affair in 2018.

"He's been rewarded $250,000 for killing them and it comes out of everything they've worked for.

"The law's got to change. It's not OK to kill and inherit."

Negotiating public perception

Mr Hockley says forfeiture cases are "extremely difficult".

Additionally, he says the outcomes of cases need to appease public expectations.

"There is a public expectation that a person shouldn't benefit from their crime and so that's the underlying basis of the forfeiture rule, then as we get these different permutations and combinations that come up ... you start to get differences," he says.

Mr Gregson agrees that there are public perceptions to be met in forfeiture cases, and says negotiating them is far from simple.

"There's an overriding principle from the historical common law and equitable principals that you can't profit from a crime certainly [from] killing someone," he says.

"But the problem here is, where's the balance?"