The problem is that the party that did the theft has often resold the home to an innocent third party that had no reason to believe the property was not legally owned by the thief. Restoring the home to the original owner then just changed the victim from the original owner to the innocent buyer who bought the house.
Right, but the bank just verified the buyer, they aren’t in the business of verifying that the buyer isn’t buying some variation of the Brooklyn bridge.
For sure the buyer has more of a responsibility to make sure they aren’t buying the Brooklyn bridge, the actual owner is just minding their business living their life.
“Restoring the home to the original owner then just changed the victim from the original owner to the innocent buyer who bought the house.”
Which is how it should be. No one should be allowed to buy and keep stolen property. It’s the buyer’s responsibility to make sure they aren’t being scammed, not the innocent and unknowing owner.