In Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006) (“EBay”), the Court restated that:
“The traditional four-factor test applied by courts of equity when considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief to a prevailing plaintiff  requir[ing] a plaintiff to demonstrate:
(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury;
(2) that remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury;
(3) that considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and
(4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
The decision to grant or deny such relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. […] “[A] major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied.” Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 320. Nothing in the Act indicates such a departure.”” (bold type added).the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
The four-factor test has been repeatedly reaffirmed over the decades by the U.S. Supreme Court — no coincidence the above-mentioned tradition. (See: Cornel Law School on Permanent Injunctions: "There is a balancing test that courts typically employ in determining whether to issue an injunction. To seek a permanent injunction, the plaintiff must pass the [above] four-step test" (Weinberger v. Romero—Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311–313, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982); Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987))
Unlike in the UK, most, if not all, U.S. states provide no statutory injunction or similar remedy mandating that a victim of criminal theft (let alone civil conversions) be returned their property by anyone who may have gained possession or equitable ownership in good faith.
For example, subdivision (c) of Section 496 of the California Penal Code on the criminal transfer and receipt of criminally obtained property and provides exclusively the following remedies for the victim of theft or other criminal dispossession and obtainment:
“Any person who has been injured by a violation of subdivision (a) or (b) [of Section 496] may bring an action for three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney’s fees”
The above provides no statutory injunction or even “indicate[ any] departure from the long tradition of equity practice [(which] should not be lightly implied[)]” (Ebay) leaving a mandatory injunction of the return of any stolen property outside of the realm of law declaring no such right to be asserted and exercised by the victim of theft and at the merits of the courts with jurisdiction in California to use equitable powers subject to, among other maxims, the traditional principles listed out in EBay.
Alice gets a violin stolen from her, an instrument she never learned to play; criminal prosecution ensues and results in the conviction of Bob who was the perpetrator of the theft.
During depositions it is admitted and left undisputed that Charlie, in good faith, purchased the violin from Bob.
Charlie learned to play on the violin, and now his sole income relies on it as he is unable to substitute the property by any means to make ends meet. Bob spent all the proceeds from the trade in the stolen property.
1.a) Is there any states in the U.S. where stolen property is statutorily (and/or by case law) mandated to be returned to the legal owner from an equitable owner in the above scenario or in cases where the victims’ footings are more balanced? 1.b) Which are they?
2.a) Is there anything else whatsoever than the law (statutory or decisional) that Alice may plead to bind the court to issue a mandatory injunction ordering Charlie to return the violin to Alice if Alice is willing to forgo any and all damages in return of such injunctions? 2.b) If there is, how does it overcome Ebay?
3.) Which states, if any, in the U.S. punish the knowing possession of stolen property as opposed to punishing the knowing receipt thereof?
*As understood at the time of the question.