Let me put this another way. Please remember that for the purpose of this discussion the receiver of the stolen goods and the person they are sold onward to ar

Let me put this another way. Please remember that for the purpose of this discussion the receiver of the stolen goods and the person they are sold onward to are 100% innocent and nobody suspects them of being dishonest. If the receiver was in on it then this does not apply. If someone stole 2 iPhones from you and sells them to a used phone dealer, who then sells those very 2 iPhones - your iPhones - to someone else, does the law require the used phone dealer to give you 2 other iPhones of the same model that he happens to have? I believe, and perhaps I am wrong here, that it does not. As the victim you may well be happy to made whole with 2 other identical iPhones but that is not what will happen. Furthermore, the used phone dealer will not be required to pay you any of the money he received from the buyer of your phones or reimburse you for the cost of your phones. If the dealer had sold only 1 of the phones then you would get that back and not have to compensate the dealer for his loss resulting in paying the thief. If the items were such that you cannot prove you own it, such as with coffee beans, then you get absolutely nothing. You do not get some fair volume of them to compensate you. That is how I understand the way stolen property is handled in general currently. I am not attempting to pass a moral judgement about it, merely describe how it is. (may not be so in all jurisdictions, but in CA/US/UK/AU/at least some parts of SE Asia)