So.....
The store loses $70 out the cash register and $70 worth of goods.
The money and the goods both belonged to the store....as the store already paid for the goods.
They have $100 in the register, and he takes $70, but gives them $30 back.
He takes $70 worth of goods.
They lose $140.
Even though he "bought" the items, he used THEIR cash to do it....so they got hit 2x.
Think of it this way.....if he took $70 worth of goods and just stole the $100, then we'd say the store lost $170. He gave them $30 back, so they lost $140.
They stole 100
Used that stolen money to purchase 70 worth of goods
They received 30 back from the stolen 100
The owner lost 170 in total
They also lost the original 100.the owner lost 70 dollars worth of goods and 30 dollars change
They also lost the original 100.
They lost cash and merchandise
nope
first transaction wasn't legit. second one was. Ask chatgpt if you still believe your answer. Better yet
Already did, says 100 but I still kinda question the answer
I get the angle but in my opinion the 100 did not return. You took 100 that I could have used for something. You also took 70 with of goods that I could have sold.like i said. The first transaction they lost a hundred. so its simple enough. but now the guy comes back and uses that 100 in a legitimate transaction. Imagine it was someone else doing it. Store is still down a hundred. Now instead of losing a hundred straight up. That hundred has been turned into 70 dollars worth of product and 30 dollars back in cash. still 100 dollars worth of stuff. If i was to nitpick i'd say theoretically the store lost the wholesale value of the merch so they are better off with that second exchange. But one can argue opportunity cost.
Either way a stolen 100 dollars turned into 70 dollars worth of product and 30 dollars change is the simple way to look at it.