Related for Bava Kamma 136:19

כיון דפסקוה למילתיה וטבח ומכר הוה ליה גזלן וגזלן אינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה

pay since it was his that he slaughtered and his that he sold? — He replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Resh Lakish to R. Johanan. ');">¹⁷</span> We are dealing here with a case where, for instance, the owner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not the thief. ');">¹⁸</span> consecrated the animal while it was in the possession of the thief.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Before Renunciation.] ');">¹⁹</span> But will it in that case become consecrated? Did not R. Johanan say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 397; B.M. 7a. ');">²⁰</span> that where a robber misappropriated an article and the owner has not abandoned hope of recovering it, neither of them is able to consecrate it: the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The robber. ');">²¹</span> because it is not his, the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner. ');">²²</span> because it is not in his possession? — We might reply that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Resh Lakish. ');">²³</span> had in mind the practice of the virtuous, as we have learnt: The virtuous<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [H] (plur. [H]) 'denotes a positive quality, probably nothing else but discretion or modesty', Buchler, Types (contra Kohler, who identifies the Zenu'im with Essenes) pp. 59 ff.] ');">²⁴</span> used to set aside money and to declare that whatever has been gleaned [by passers-by] from this [vineyard]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In its fourth year, the fruit of which is prohibited unless redeemed, cf. Lev. XIX, 24. ');">²⁵</span> shall be redeemed by this money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which seems to show that fruits already misappropriated could also be redeemed by the owner and thus also consecrated. (M.Sh. V, 1). ');">²⁶</span> But [if the owner consecrated the animal], has not the principal thus been restored to the owner? [Why then should a thief pay double on it? — We assume a case where the consecration took place] after the case came into court [and evidence had already been given against the thief]. What were the circumstances? If the judges had already ordered him to go and pay the owner, why should exemption be only where he consecrated the animal? Why even where the owner did not consecrate it should the thief be liable? For did Raba not say that if [after the judges said], 'Go forth and pay him,' the thief slaughtered or sold the animal, he would be exempt, the reason being that since the judges had given their final sentence on the matter, when he sold or slaughtered the animal, he became [in the eye of the law] a 'robber', and a 'robber' has not to pay four-fold and five-fold payments,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the distinction between robber and thief in this respect cf. infra p. 452. ');">²⁷</span>

Tosefta Bava Kamma