This article addresses the debate which has arisen from Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s much cited dictum that equity imposes a constructive trust on a fraudulent recipient whenever property is obtained by fraud. It explores the rationale for the imposition of a constructive trust in the context of the underlying legal principles and considers how those principles have been approached in the key authorities. In an effort to identify a coherent rationalisation of the authorities, it then focuses on the decision in Halley v Law Society and addresses whether that decision can be reconciled with other authority, particularly the recent Supreme Court decision in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc.