Reference for Bava Kamma 208:14
אלא מאי לא הודה לא הודה אביו והודה בנו
since the whole discussion revolves here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the latter case. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> around the Fifth, does it not show that the principal will have to be paid? It was moreover taught explicitly: 'I would still say that the case where an heir has to pay the principal for a robbery committed by his father was only where both he and his father took oaths or where his father though not he, or he though not his father took an oath, but whence could it be proved that [the same holds good] where neither he nor his father took an oath? From the significant words: <i>The misappropriated article</i> and<i> the deceitfully gotten article, the lost article and the deposit</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. V, 23. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>