Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs) are investigative tools brought in by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which give new powers to the UK law enforcement authorities to fight money laundering. UWOs apply to individuals and other structures, e.g., trusts and companies, and require a respondent to explain the nature and extent of his interest in particular assets and how the assets were obtained. These orders further apply to assets located within and outside of the United Kingdom. This chapter examines the addition of UWOs to the arsenal of anti-money laundering measures in the United Kingdom. Compliance with a UWO will make further inroads on the privacy of trusts since information will have to be disclosed about the origin of the funds used to obtain specific trust assets. In addition, the Criminal Finances Act 2017 adopts a wide definition of persons taken to ‘hold’ trust property. This includes a ‘beneficiary, whether actual or potential’. Given the absence of any guidance provided by the 2017 Act, the chapter seeks to interrogate the meaning of ‘hold’ and determine when a discretionary beneficiary ought to be treated as ‘holding’ trust assets for the purposes of UWOs.

New Zealand’s high rate of discretionary trust usage is mirrored by a significant number of attempts to penetrate the ring-fence created by trusts in order to provide some recourse for creditors, spouses and de facto partners of the settlors. This chapter considers a recent line of cases that has shown the courts’ willingness to recognise the application of a constructive trust to property already held subject to an express trust. The constructive trust is said to arise in response to the reasonable expectations of the third-party claimant of an interest in the property in return for various contributions made. This is so even despite one or more of the trustees having no knowledge of the expectations and/or the contributions. The courts have viewed themselves as departing from trust orthodoxy in these cases, saying that ‘traditional rules…must bend to the practical realities’. This paper will examine the cases and analyse whether they are in fact a departure from trust principles and whether such departure is justified. The author argues that there are two main objections to this development: one relating to the nature of the beneficial interest and the other to the remedy being awarded.