of a judgment based on wrongdoing wholly unrelated to the creation and disposition of funds into an ERISA account. The fraud occurred separately from and independently of the employee’s ERISA interests, and there was no attempt to abuse the Federal shield of ERISA assets in order to violate State fraud laws. Here, however, the very creation and enhancement of the trust is alleged to have been in defraud [sic] of creditors. Consumer Marketing, 71 N.Y.2d at 454, 527 N.Y.S.2d 185, 522 N.E.2d 30 (emphasis added). Thus it would appear that the ERISA antialienation provision — and, by logical extension, § 9 — is to be broadly construed by New York courts: Even in cases of outright theft, the protection from alien ation remains intact. Compare Guidry, 493 U.S. at 376, 110 S.Ct. 680 (<HOLDING>). Alienation is permitted, Consumer Marketing
holding that obligation to pay pension benefits gave rise to a constructive trust relationship and obligation was not discharged in bankruptcy holding that the mvra overrides erisas antialienation provision holding that a proper waiver of interest by a nonpartieipant in a plan is not preempted by erisas antialienation provisions holding that erisas antialienation statute precluded imposition of a constructive trust on pension benefits owed to an individual convicted of embezzlement holding that the statute of limitations cannot bar appellants claim that a constructive trust should be imposed  because a constructive trust is an equitable remedy and therefore not subject to the statute