The overlap between the law of restitution and the law of property has again come before the courts, this time in the context of criminal liability. R. v. Preddy 1 is a decision of the House of Lords on the offence of dishonestly obtaining property by deception, contrary to the Theft Act 1968, s. 15(1 ).2 The case is of interest beyond the criminal law. It examines how property rights pass when money is paid by an electronic funds transfer (“EFT”). It illustrates the dual nature of money as a repository of enriching value, and as a res which is the subject of property rights. The case also illustrates the distinction between tracing, as an exercise in identifying value, and the legal rights that can be asserted to enforce a restitutionary claim. It is on these private law implications of Preddy that this Comment will concentrate.3

The defendants perpetrated a series of mortgage frauds against building societies. They deliberately gave false information when they submitted their mortgage applications. They provided false details, for instance, about their employment and income, or about the use to which they intended to put the real estate they had arranged to buy. The counts of