  In its primary sense, restitution is “restoration of something lost or stolen to its proper owner” (The New Oxford American Dictionary 2001). Clearly, then, reparations and restitution both presuppose the separation of something from its proper owner. But, equally clearly, reparations do not constitute restitution. Reparations can only occur after some losses or damage due to a prior wrongdoing. But though restitution can only occur after some loss or damage, that loss or damage need not be due to a prior wrongdoing. If A loses his wallet and B finds it and returns it to A, restitution has been made although no wrongdoing was committed. Further, while reparations is a right (or a cluster of rights), restitution is not always a right. If B finds but leaves A’s wallet where it is, restitution has not been made, but it is not clear that a right was violated. It is doubtful that a person who loses things has a right that others find it for him. If B finds but keeps A’s wallet, then again restitution has not been made, and A has a right that B return it. But in that case A has a right that B return it because A has a right to reparations and restitution can sometimes be part of reparations. Some authors seem to think that B ought to return the wallet because otherwise B will have unjustly enriched himself at A’s expense. But it is not clear why B’s unjust enrichment is a necessary condition for B’s obligation to return the wallet to A. Even if the wallet is worthless and B is not unjustly enriched by keeping it, B has no business holding on to it since it is not his property.