Siman 366

Our sages, of blessed memory, said [Bava Kamma 94b]: Robbers and usurers who returned [stolen goods], one does not accept from them, and one who accepts from them, the spirit of the sages is not pleased with him. And it happened that a certain robber sought to perform repentance; his wife said to him: "Empty one, if you perform repentance, even your belt is not yours," and he refrained and did not perform repentance. Therefore, they enacted this regulation so that he should not refrain from performing repentance. And specifically a famous robber whose business is such and whose repentance is difficult, for he must return all that he has; but an occasional robber, one accepts from him. And even a robber whose business is such, specifically when he comes to perform repentance of his own accord, in this the sages were concerned so that he should not refrain from performing repentance; but if they compel him to return, one accepts from him, for he is not awakening to repentance. And so too, specifically when the stolen object is not in existence, but when it is in existence, one accepts from him. And the same applies to one who stole a beam and built it into a house; even though it is in existence, it is as if it is not in existence, for they enacted that he should pay its value, as has been written in siman 360. Therefore, if he is a famous robber, one does not accept even the money from him. But when he stole land and built buildings upon it, there is one who says that even with a famous robber who comes to perform repentance of his own accord, he must demolish his buildings and return the land, and one accepts it from him [Sma], and they did not apply the "regulation of the penitents" to land because it cannot be stolen. And so too, if the victim of the robbery owes others, he accepts from him in any case in order to pay his debts if he has nothing to pay from another source [Shach].

If this gazlan returned [the object] and the victim said to him, "I will not accept it from you, in accordance with the enactment of the sages," and the gazlan said to him, "Even though you forgive me, I do not desire this, and I wish to fulfill my obligation toward Heaven and return it to you," one does not prevent the victim from receiving it, and he need not exert himself much. For this enactment is no greater than shemittah, as one who returns a debt after the seventh year must say, "I release it," and if the borrower says to him, "Even so," they accept it from him, as is written in siman 67. Nevertheless, it is not entirely similar to there, for there he can maneuver with words until he says so to him, as is written there, but here he should not do so since this is because of the enactment for the penitent. So too, if he did not come to perform repentance on his own, but rather the victim sued him, they obligate him to return it. So too, if the beit din compels him to return all his thefts, as is written in section 1. And all these laws also apply to a notorious thief and to a lender with interest whose business is such, and it was explained in Yoreh Deah siman 161.

Our sages, of blessed memory, said that for shepherds and tax collectors, their repentance is difficult because they are presumed to rob the public and do not know to whom they should return [the stolen goods]. Therefore, the sages said that they should use the stolen goods for public needs, such as pits, ditches, caves, road repairs, bathhouses, and the like, so that the victims of the robbery will also benefit from this. However, forgiveness is not applicable to them, for there is no one who knows if they were robbed or not. When he performs public needs, Hashem will cause it that each of the victims or their heirs will benefit according to the value of his robbery and that they will forgive him; and one who comes to be purified is assisted from Heaven. "Shepherds" refers to when they graze their own animals, but when they graze the animals of others, they are not presumed to be robbers, for a person does not sin for the sake of another.

It appears to me that even though if a beit din has the power to compel a robber to return his robbery they compel him, nevertheless, in the case of those who rob the public, they do not compel them to provide for public needs, for this is not a superior restoration; rather, if he is moved on his own to perform repentance, they say to him: "Provide with them for public needs," because it is impossible to rectify it in any other way, but not that a beit din would compel this. And in siman 355 the manner of return regarding a thief was explained, whether the knowledge of the owners is required, and all the laws apply also to a robber, but the primary law of the knowledge of the owners does not apply as much to a robber, for the victim of the robbery knows of the robbery in most robberies [Sma]:

In siman 355 it was explained that the owner does not need to know at the time of the return, but one is obligated to return it to the domain of the owner. Therefore, if a vessel was in the hand of the son of the householder or in the hand of his slave, and someone took the vessel from the son or from the slave without the knowledge of the owner and used it, he is a sho'el without knowledge whose law is like a gazlan, and it stands in his domain and he becomes liable for accidents until he returns it to the owner. And if he returned it to the son or to the slave and it was lost from him or broken, he is liable to pay. And even though the vessel was in the hand of the son or the slave with the knowledge of the father or the master, nevertheless, after he took it without his knowledge, he must return it to the owner himself, as was written in siman 181. And this is specifically when the son is a minor, but with an adult son, since he returned it to the place from which he took it and returned it to a person of understanding, he is exempt, for in this case he is not a sho'el like a gazlan, as was written in siman 292 [Sma]. And only to a minor is it like a deliberate loss, and similarly a slave's law is like a minor, as was written in siman 291.

One who robs his fellow in a settled area and comes to return it to him in the wilderness has not fulfilled the obligation of returning if the victim of the robbery did not want to receive it and he returned it to him against his will, unless he receives it of his own will. However, if he returns it to him in a settled area, even if not in the place where he robbed him, he has fulfilled the obligation of returning even when he returned it to him against the will of the victim. And in siman 293 it was explained regarding a deposit what its law is, and there it was explained that the depositor cannot claim from the depository except in the place where he deposited, but regarding a robber this does not apply, and the victim can claim from him even not in the place where he robbed him; and it is not similar to a deposit, for a deposit was by will.