Thieves as Trustees : The Enduring Legacy of Black v. F. S. Freedman & Co Ltd

This article critically analyses the established proposition that a thief holds stolen money or property on trust for the victim. This proposition was first stated in the High Court decision of Black v. F. S .Freedman & Co Ltd. The idea that stolen property is held on trust is attractive to plaintiffs if the defendant is insolvent or the property has been transferred to a third party.The article considers the original context in which the proposition was asserted, and several scenarios which extend the principle. A title-based analysis is used to demonstrate that there is no scope for the trust to exist in relation to stolen cash or tangible property. There is, however, some sensible basis for a trust over the proceeds of stolen money or property, and a trust over money misappropriated from a bank account. The possible nature of these trusts, and some problems associated with them, are considered. Also addressed is whether a reform of tracing rules would prevent the need for reliance on the proposition