What is the ruling regarding imprisonment if an individual confesses to stealing the property of an absent person?

Primary text

If an individual confesses to stealing the property of an absent person, he must be imprisoned until the absent person is present. This is because it is possible that the owner permitted the act. If one confesses to an absolute right belonging to an absent person, he is not imprisoned, as there is no established right owed to the absent person without a command for his imprisonment. In the case of theft of an absent person's property, both the right of God and the right of the individual are involved, necessitating imprisonment due to the right of God. If the stolen item is in the confessor's possession, the judge must seize it and keep it for the absent owner. If the item is not in his possession, the absent owner will be the opposing litigant when he arrives.