What is the ruling on a house inhabited by the parents of a man who stole money from the state bank, and then the state relinquished half of the stolen money, including the value of this house? Is it permissible because the state relinquished its right, or forbidden because it is the right of the people?

The inviolability of public funds is like the inviolability of private funds, but even more severe. Whoever takes anything from it unjustly must repent sincerely and return what he took to its rightful place. Since the state—the rightful owner—has waived half of its right and accepted the return of the other half, his responsibility is cleared, and there is no sin upon him in benefiting from the house.