Legally, its complicated, and the reason for that is because it is viewed as both morally complicated (as well simplistic approaches being viewed as creating undesired social incentives.)
Not at tolerable length for HN and do the subject justice. In very brief summary, the problem of how to balance the resolution of the interests of the two victims in this type of case, is a rather old one that has been recognized in the common law for quite a long time, leading to nuanced handling of different circumstances, which have themselves evolved over time, taking into account factors like the kind of property (real property having one general set of rules, personal property having another set of rules, but money and negotiable instrumenets having at times a different set of rules than personal property generally, etc.), the relations between the three parties, etc.
There’s been a lot of ink over the years written on the issue, though, “bona fide purchaser for value”,”innocent purchaser for value, “good-faith purchaser” are all terms for the issue. (Often, though, it will be written of in the context of a particular domain, e.g., real property transactions, commercial transactions under the UCC as compared to some particular preexisting law, etc., but it is all the same broad issue.)