Doesn't matter if she "paid" back the money. She still stole and used the credit card.
Well, that's an interesting question. Under libertarian law (as opposed to US law), if I steal money and use it to buy the car, the one I robbed has a claim against me, but the one who sold me the car does not. The victim might win a money judgment against me, or he might convince the judge to transfer the car to him, or to compel me to return it so as to repay what I stole. But that's all between me and my victim. The car dealer isn't actually involved.
Similarly, if I steal a dollar from you, use it to buy a raffle ticket, and then win a Harley, guess what? I owe you a dollar. Unless the raffle contract makes provision for such a case, the guy running the raffle has no claim against me whatsoever. The Harley is still mine, and you aren't entitled to the raffle ticket or the Harley--only to your dollar back (plus interest, recovery costs, etc.). I didn't steal a Harley from you; I stole a dollar from you.
In this case, the "victim" is the boyfriend's dead mother, who of course is in no position to press charges--and besides, was apparently repaid what was stolen. The boyfriend might count as a victim depending on the nature of his inheritance from his mother. The credit card issuer is probably the victim of fraud by the terms of the credit contract. But since the bill was repaid, neither they nor the boyfriend have any claim against her (beyond interest and recovery costs). And finally, the lottery has no claim at all; there is almost certainly no contractual provision for them to take the winnings back under these circumstances. The winning ticket was bought by the woman, and where she got the money is between her and her victim(s).
So it seems to me that justice requires that she pay off the credit card, reimburse the issuer for any costs associated with her fraudulent use of the card, repay the boyfriend for any costs her actions have imposed on him--and keep her lottery winnings. Most people would insist--without even thinking about it--that she should be stripped of the winnings and just generally smacked around a bit. That's also my first reaction, but when I think about it I'm rather torn on the question.
What leaves me torn can be illustrated with the raffle. Suppose that I stole a dollar and spent it on an unusual raffle: instead of getting a Harley or nothing, buyers of a raffle ticket either win $1,000,000,, or else have their right kneecap shattered by a thug. A handful of hardy souls want that billion so badly that they're willing to take the risk, and I'm one of them. But since I don't have a dollar, I steal one from you. Now, if I win, everyone would probably agree you should get the billion because "it was your dollar." But if I lose,
nobody would agree that you should get your kneecap shattered because "it was your dollar." So if you get all the reward and none of the risk, it must not be true that using your dollar made it your ticket, and you aren't really entitled to whatever comes out of it.
--Len.
