Gazelle owners

To the best of my knowledge, the owners of the stolen property who consider the stolen property to belong to the thief for the purpose of charging onsin are not actual ownership of despair + change, but are ordinary acts of ownership of a drawdown (courtyard ownership for some methods), etc. The questioner there asked the Rabbi about the type of absolute ownership that makes the object belong to the thief and obligates him only for the value of the theft, to which the Rabbi replied that the purpose of this ownership is to charge onsin.

To the best of my knowledge, no. Maybe there are such methods…

Bringing up this discussion again, sorry for the delay.
The simplicity of the Gem’ B”K No: As I wrote, the addition’ B”K No: The Peshitta writes in the Hadith that the thief is obligated in the onsin from the time of the collection and not from the time of the purchase of the theft (of despair and some change).
Yes, it means (this evidence is not absolute, unlike the previous one) from the words of the Gem’ B”K in the Ko: which binds a person who stole and swore that he was a thief, the Gem’ There it states that he is liable for his oath because he has been relieved by his oath of being liable for payments in the event of rape (when, in simple terms, this is not a person who has made a change in the matter of the theft, and moreover, it seems that if he had already bought the stolen object by a change, it seems that the Gm would not have justified the liability in this way).
On the same page it is also stated that a person who redeems a deposit is liable for the onsin because he is a usurper, when there it is very difficult to say that the Gm believes that the onsin makes the usurpation into his possession as Yaosh and Shinui do.
And it also seems in the simplest way from the argument (connecting to the last proof) that a usurper will not be less than a borrower. Therefore, there is no reason to wait for the time when the usurper will make a change in the object, and from the moment the object is in his possession, he will be liable for the onsin.
I hope I am not digging too deep. Thanks in advance.

Of course, there is a part of the questioner, since the questioner has a contract that requires it. The questioner accepts the thing for his use and therefore undertakes to be liable for the onsin.
It is difficult for me to go into this now, but this is the simple concept (see Appendix Ketubot La Eb, D.E. and Bereshet HaBaal, and D.E. and Bereh, who wrote this for the Hadiya). See also Befere Moshe (Theft and Robbery) C.E.

Just an opinion - the right of use also exists in the usurper and not only in the asker (the Gamma states that a usurper is not obligated to pay interest on the usurped object - I wrote the sources above).
From the sources that the Rabbi cited, it appears as I wrote, I may not have been clear enough in my writing, so I will briefly return to make sure I understood the Rabbi's words (I would be happy if the Rabbi could confirm them) -
In my understanding, an onsin obligation in the case of usurpation exists from the time of the act of usurpation, that is, from the time of withdrawal, withdrawal, etc., when despair and change of authority/act do not function as obligors of onsin payments but as transferring the usurped object to the owner's authority. There is no connection between despair and change of authority and onsin obligations since the onsin obligation precedes them.
Thanks again for the effort.

From those sources, the opposite emerges. It is about the property of committing to Onsin.

But the ownership is a property of elevation and not a full ownership of despair and change. The ownership that is beneficial to the matter of onsin is not the ownership that is beneficial to the matter of winning the object. Although there is ownership in elevation, the thief can demand the stolen object and the thief cannot refuse because that ownership is not beneficial to buying the body of the object, ownership of the body of the object is only by despair and change and not by elevation.

Therefore, there is no need for purchase through desperation and change of ownership, since the purchase of a property by way of elevation will always precede it.