Hiromi_X

Do they have an ethical obligation to? Probably not. But I can see how they might feel it was the right thing to do. I think I'd feel it was the right thing to do. I think with every level of indirection, the idea that it is the right thing to do becomes weaker and weaker.

#1 - no. NO matter how dad got it, they kids got it legally. There are gray areas in this, obviously. They *can* give the money back, but there's no *should* involved, it's a personal choice.

#2 - they original owner has a right to ask - "hey, that was stolen, do you mind?" The current owner is the defacto *owner* and has the right to decline.

That's tough. On the one hand, stolen property is stolen property.

On the other hand, inherited wealth is "legally" owned.

Is taking the inheritance (from children or grand children) a form of theft? even if it's institutionalized?

At what point does it stop belonging to someone else?

In some way I can't quite articulate, I'm inclined to believe that once a generation has turned, the theft becomes irreversible. If I stole something from you, and you didn't get it back from me, and now we're both dead.... that does NOT mean that my kid stole something from your kid. It just doesn't.

Yeah, maybe that means it sucks to be your kid. But that wasn't the question, was it? And if my kid feels bad and wants to give it back to your kid, that's great. But my kid shouldn't go to jail for not. I don't think.

I'm obviously a criminal, huh?

I'm going to waffle on this one H!
It depends on circumstances, both on the part of Thief and part of Victim. :)
Circumstance 1: Thief steals from Victim. Victim doesn't discover the theft until years later and Thief has died, leaving $ to his heirs. Statute of limitations applies, heirs have no obligation, issue is unprosecutable. Should they give it back? How good are their consciences? Basically becomes case of 'Prove he stole it, prove what he left me is your money'. Burden of proof on Victim.
Circ. 2: Thief steals from Victim. Victim is aware of the theft, reports crime, Thief dies while statute of limitations is still in effect, heirs have $. It's a crime, heirs are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to return the stolen $, but prosecutors would still have to prove it's illegally gotten gains.
Circ. 3: Thief steals from Victim. Victim knows about it, doesn't confront Thief (what a wimp!), instead choosing to wait until Thief is dead. Victim then browbeats heirs about returning $. Tough luck, should have prosecuted, can't prove it's the Thief.
Keep in mind that money isn't very traceable like that. If the theft in question is over something (object d'art, jewelry, vase, etc) that can be proven/traced, then I think the heirs are obligated to return it.
Happened with my Great Gram. Her grandkids were taking her furniture that had been willed to other members of the family (dad/uncles/aunts/cousins). Upon her death, my dad got the local sheriff and they were forced to return the documented, willed items they had stolen. Silly people didn't think she had left a will.... Silly silly people.
So. I waffle and say it depends on the circumstances. Are there hard, fast answers? No.

+1 What Karl said.

Unfortunately, in the real world (whatever that is) it is almost always impossible to determine who the original owner was. About the best that can be done is start from a clean slate and steal no more ...

So, Hiromi, were you recently bequeathed a large fortune you've discovered was actually stolen from me‽ \(^o^)/

This is the reparations argument people around the world have been asking and getting no clear answer to for years and years.

I don't have a solid answer; at best I think it may be case dependent.

I do feel that in general, family members shouldn't be held responsible for the crimes of another family member, no matter what that crime was. But should they PROFIT from it, even if not knowingly? This becomes a messier question. And it becomes an even messier question if the crime in question is only named a crime after the fact, which sometimes happens--as in the case of slavery or Holocaust reparations.

I guess I should add, because the above may not indicate this, that in principle I am for the concept of reparations. Give it back to the wronged person. Period.

However, I think that's all very easy in theory, but much harder in reality, should the issue move to generations past the actual thief and victim themselves. Because then you potentially have to choose who you are going to impoverish of two groups who weren't directly involved and had no say in what happened.

I was just reading your comment farther up about stolen property should be given back. But what if it's no longer property? It's easy if the person stole an expensive painting--just turn over the painting. But what if they SOLD the painting, invested the money, and became wealthy off of it? What if the property has changed hands 4 times since it was stolen? What if there was never any property, but *value* was stolen, as in the case of slavery, where free labor was provided at the expense of other humans, which made others rich?

This is why I say I can only see it as a case by case basis.

Although I see it directly the opposite to your first commenter. They may no longer have a legal obligation to do anything about it; but I *do* think they have an ethical obligation. Should it be a one-to-one exchange of the original property value? Hard to say. But SOMETHING, yes. I think they have an ethical obligation NOT to ignore it if they become knowledgeable of it.

In my opinion, if the original owner is still alive, the property must be returned to that person regardless of who owns it. It doesn't matter whether or not they knew it was stolen when they got it. It goes back to the original owner. Tough titty on subsequent owners.

Right, but then in that example of the painting sold down the line and profit made from the original theft/sale, well then the original thief, the person really guilty for the transgression--and/or his/her progeny--don't really "pay back" anything or face any consequence for the crime committed. Complicated issue.

Thought about this some more, and discussed it with Mr. Man, and have another thing to add to it. The generational, heritable pursuit of purloined property is problematic because what the children and grandchildren are pursuing is NOT rightfully owned property. They are not trying to recover stolen goods that they themselves rightfully own; they are pursuing *expected* value. They are trying to fill a gap in what they thought they'd have. That's going to be so hard to successfully prosecute.

It's very easy to say, for instance, had the Nazis NOT displaced my grandparents from their Viennese apartment and quartered their officers there, I myself would currently be the owner of a Viennese apartment.

But that's not the inevitable consequence of that what-if. If the Nazis had not displaced my grandparents, and they'd remained in their Viennese apartment, my father would've not been born in America, and would never have met my mother, and I would not exist to claim rightful inherited ownership of an apartment in Vienna. Obviously no law can properly adjudicate my nebulous existence, but the people who CURRENTLY hold the deed to the apartment in Vienna have a much stronger claim than I have.

[N.B.: This is semi-hypothetical. It's not about me, but actually something I read in the paper here a few weeks ago.]

One of the basic incompatibilities in life is between the rights of ownership, and the ways of justice and righteous human interaction. If we are all going to subscribe to the notion that a person can own anything, we have to also accept that we can be deprived of that thing, and that we're not always going to be happy about that. That's just the deal of ownership, I think. In a perfect world, EVERYONE gets a pony, if you see what I mean.

I'll be honest, I haven't commented until now because I just have no idea. I do think that there's more of a need to return property than money because of the emotional value, but otherwise, this brings up so many issues that I can't come to a satisfactory answer.