Ulla said: from where that despair of recovery does not transfer ownership? As it says, "and you have brought the stolen, and the lame, and the sick" (Malachi 1:13) — the stolen is compared to the lame: just as the lame has no remedy at all, so the stolen has no remedy at all. Rava said: it is derived from here — "his offering," and not the stolen one. When? If you say before the owner despaired of recovery, why is a verse needed? Rather it must be after the owner despaired of recovery. Learn from this.
A Stolen Animal Can Never Become a Valid Offering
Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 436:7
אָמַר עוּלָא מִנַּיִן לְיֵאוּשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי א, יג) "וַהֲבֵאתֶם גָּזוּל וְאֶת הַפִּסֵּחַ וְאֶת הַחוֹלֶה", גָּזוּל דּוּמְיָא דְּפִסֵּחַ, מַה פִּסֵּחַ דְּלֵית לֵיהּ תַּקָּנָה כְּלָל אַף גָּזוּל דְּלֵית לֵיהּ תַּקָּנָה כְּלָל רָבָא אָמַר מֵהָכָא קָרְבָּנוֹ וְלֹא הַגָּזוּל, אֵימַת, אִילֵימָא לִפְנֵי יֵאוּשׁ לָמָּה לִי קְרָא אֶלָּא לָאו לְאַחַר יֵאוּשׁ, שְׁמַע מִינַהּ.