What is the ruling if a third party steals the property after the original owner secured it?

Primary text

If another person steals the property after the original owner reclaimed it, there are two views. The primary view holds that there is no amputation (*qata'*) because the person has a semblance of justification (shubha) in breaching the security and taking wealth, placing him in the position of one stealing without the element of a secured enclosure. Furthermore, this view grants legitimacy to taking an amount equivalent to one's due, as some scholars permit a person to take the equivalent of his debt from the debtor’s property. The opposing view dictates amputation because the theft involved property meeting the threshold taken from its secured enclosure without any justification. This allowance to take only the equivalent of one's due is only permissible when one is incapable of reclaiming their wealth, but in this case, reclaiming the wealth was possible, thus taking another's property is impermissible.