Which of the two is more prioritized for a person who possesses unlawful money and an amount less than what is required to be given out: to give out what is available in installments until the full amount is reached, or to invest what is available to improve his financial situation and then give out the required amount in a shorter period?

The fundamental principle is the obligation to promptly dispose of ill-gotten wealth, especially if it was acquired without the owner's consent, such as stolen or usurped property. In such cases, it must be returned immediately to its owner or heir. However, if the wealth was acquired with the owner's consent, such as usury (riba), the matter is less strict. Some scholars permit the earner of such unlawful wealth, if they repent, to take from it and invest it if they are in need. If the person is poor and in need of capital, it is permissible for them to invest this wealth to spend from its returns. But if they are wealthy, it is obligatory for them to promptly dispose of what they possess and not invest it.