Should a convicted thief who stole a batch of rare collectible coins from his former employer have to pay nearly $87,000 in restitution for the crime?

A divided state Superior Court panel sent that case back for reconsideration in the majority opinion issued Tuesday by Judge Alice Beck Dubow.

The key issue here is, how much were the coins actually worth on the day Patrick Solomon stole them in 2017?

That market value of the coins on the date of the theft is important, Dubow found, because it has to be the gauge for determining how much Solomon, 32, of Mount Wolf, must repay for his crime.

However, the $86,974 in restitution York County Judge Craig T. Trebilcock imposed on Solomon was based on the total of what the owner paid to acquire the coins over the years rather than their market value on July 23, 2018, the day of Solomon’s restitution hearing, or what they were worth at the time of the theft.

Dubow concluded the date of theft value must be used to determine restitution because the values of collectible coins tend to vary greatly, even from day to day.

Trebilcock set Solomon’s restitution figure after Solomon pleaded guilty to a theft by unlawful taking charge and was sentenced to 3 to 23 months on county prison under a plea agreement. His deal didn’t cover the restitution issue, however.

Solomon appealed the restitution ruling to Dubow’s court, arguing that Trebilcock had severely overcharged him for his crime.

Dubow noted that Trebilcock based his nearly $87,000 restitution ruling on the owner’s testimony regarding what he paid for the coins and what their value was at the time of the July 2018 hearing based on the sales of similar coins on eBay.

“This is a very interesting question, probably should be on a law school exam someday,” Trebilcock said during the restitution hearing. “So, are we going to say that we’re going to let the thief set the market price by having the thief through his misconduct set the date and the valuation of the items? That doesn’t seem just. It doesn’t seem like an accurate valuation either.”

In overturning Trebicock’s decision, Dubow noted the law bars judges from setting restitution based on “speculation.”

Trebilcock “ordered restitution to comport with the purchase price of the coins. However, (he) also found that the market value of collectible coins fluctuates. Accordingly, utilizing the purchase price as the value of the coins at the time of their theft was speculative” she wrote.

“In light of the fluctuating nature of fair market value of the coins, (Trebilcock) should have relied upon expert testimony that would account for the fluctuations in the price of the coins over time to determine the fair market value of the coins at the time (Solomon) stole the coins,” Dubow concluded.

Judge Mary Jane Bowes filed a dissenting opinion backing Trebilcock’s call on the restitution.

The Legislature intends for crime victims to receive “the fullest compensation” possible from those who preyed upon them,” Bowes noted. She found Trebilcock’s decision on the difficult financial question of the coins’ worth was “manifestly reasonable.”