Yes, with a stolen item, the item goes straight to the rightful owner (presumably the person that the item was stolen from), but you get the $$ refund from the person you bought it from. That's why they tell you to keep the receipt.
That's also why, despite criticism from the chatboard rabble (
), auction houses are using sound legal judgment when they don't give refunds to a person who is not the direct buyer. If you think about it, giving a refund to a person who was not only wasn't the buyer but who you may have never met before is goofy. If they give the refund to anyone down the buying food chain, multiple people may be asking for full refunds on one item.
I remember on this board when someone wanted refund from the original auction house. Not only wasn't he the original buyer from the auction house, but he insisted the auction house pay what he paid for it years later and not what the auction house originally sold it for. He got angry when I said that that's not the way things work nor should work.
Along the lines of the above paragraph, I also find it amusing when collectors years after the fact assign rules and conditions to LOAs or auction house rules that appear nowhere on the LOA. "The LOA says one-year money back guarantee, but I think the should be lifetime triple money back guarantee. Everyone with me?" While he's at it, he might as include "Plus a new car and a date with Charlize Theron." And let me take a wild guess: he'd be pissed if the auction house retroactively changed the terms of the letter in their favor ("No, no, you've got it wrong. I've clearly just written in the margin that YOU owe ME a new car and date with Charlize Theron. No, just a second here, where's my pen?: 'Two cars.' No, wait, 'Plus you have to wear really ugly clothes for a year and tell people that your name is Butt.' Sorry, there's no more blank space on the letter to write on, so I win!")