Where there had been no mixing the property could be traced at common law. Money was transferred by electronic transfer so there was no physical asset which could be traced. The fraudulent accountant owed a fiduciary duty to the company. He would be liable to account as constructive trustee as he knowingly assisted in the fraud.

Money was loaned on very favourable terms. BCCI collapsed, and the creditors tried to claim against the money paid to Chief Akindele for his assistance in fraud.

The level of dishonesty needed to create liability as constructive trustee was ‘such that it would make it unconscionable for them to retain the receipt’.

Deposits paid for property were used to pay for insurance premiums by M. M committed suicide and over £1 million was paid on the insurance policy. The claimant traced the money into the insurance payment.

The claimant was entitled to a charge over the payment, with interest paid on that amount, but his claim was not restricted to this (as the Court of Appeal had found). He could claim a proportion of the payment equivalent to his contribution.

A solicitor removed clients’ money from the client account and used the money or gambling at the Playboy Club. This was a breach of the solicitor’s fiduciary obligations. The Playboy Club had received that money under a void contract (gambling contracts were void at the time). As the Playboy Club had no legal claim to the money it was required to return its value to the ‘real’ owner.

The liability to repay the solicitor was strict but subject to a defence of change of position. The argument by the Playboy Club that it was equity’s darling failed as its contract was void under the existing gambling laws of the time.

Money was lent to Sim, acting for Yardley, for the sole purpose of buying property. In breach, Sim paid the money to Yardley’s solicitor, Leach. He released it to Yardley. On default Leach was sued for dishonest assistance.

The loan was made as a Quistclose trust. The case decided on the ‘combined test’. Has D transgressed the standards of conduct? Does D realize the transgression? Note: the test was ‘reviewed’ by the Privy Council in Eurotrust v Barlow Clowes [2006].