Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/368

Paragraph 1- If one rescues from Jewish bandits, he may keep the item because the default assumption is that the owner gave up hope. If he knows the owner did not give up hope, he would be required to return. If one rescues from gentile bandits or tax collectors, however, he would be required to return because the default assumption is that the owner did not give up hope. If the owner did give up hope, he may keep the item. Why did they say that the default assumption for a Jewish bandit is that he did give up hope and for a gentile bandit he did not? Because the owner knows that gentiles would cause a robber to return, even if there were no witnesses that he robbed and they just had week proofs and their own analysis. There is a presumption the owner gave up hope in a standard theft, even from a gentile. Thus, if one acquires from a thief, he would not have to return the stolen item unless we know that the owner did not give up hope, because the buyer has acquired via giving up hope and the change of possession, as was discussed above in Siman 353. Nevertheless, we have the custom to return all stolen items, and one should not deviate from the custom, as was discussed above in Siman 356. There is no distinction on this between the case of a thief and a robber, and in all cases he would return the money and take what is his. This seems correct to me. See above in Siman 236 for one who purchases stolen real property.