The res judicata principle and the final character of arbitral awards, combined with the principle of legal certainty, command to narrow the possibilities to challenge arbitral awards, and to reduce the timeframe allocated to exercise those recourses. However, fraud, and more specifically, fraud in arbitration (also known as “procedural fraud”), constituted by a series of fraudulent schemes in the course of the arbitration proceedings which alter the decision of the arbitrators, is so unbearable that it calls for an exception to these principles. This article will focus on procedural issues, and more precisely on the organization of recourses in case of fraud in arbitration. In this respect, though all legal systems seem to acknowledge that a fraud in arbitration should be sanctioned, they do not necessarily adopt the same approach to solve this issue. In a disparate legal environment, French law is at a crossroads of the various paths adopted in comparative law, since it has hesitated, over time, between the implementation of a specific recourse, such as revision or withdrawal of the award, or an ordinary recourse, essentially the annulment action, and to grant jurisdiction to either state courts or arbitral tribunals for such recourse. These hesitations have not completely disappeared, even after the French decree of 2011 amending French arbitration law. Consequently, French law can be seen as a chaotic construction with some remaining flaws, which allow to raise questions on possible improvements regarding available recourses in case of fraud in arbitration.