How sound is the saying that sin does not exceed two parties, such that illicit money becomes permissible for whoever receives it after it has been circulated twice, even if everyone knows its illicit source?

The answer clarifies that if the saying "the sin is on the one behind" implies the permissibility of using stolen or usurped property with the user's knowledge, and that the sin falls solely on the thief, then this is incorrect. The first person (the user) sins due to their transgression and illicit gain, and the second (the thief) sins by depriving the owner of their property and assisting in what is unlawful. However, if the saying means that taking something through purchase or gift from a thief or usurper without the buyer's knowledge that it is stolen carries no sin, then this is correct. But if they become aware of the truth, then the property must be returned to its owner or their forgiveness sought.