Bava Kamma 106B

אי אמרת בשלמא נשבע ⁠– כי אתו עדים מיחייב, אמטו להכי מחייבינן ליה קרבן אשבועה בתרייתא, הואיל ויכול לחזור ולהודות;

Granted, if you say that when one takes a false oath and then witnesses come, he is liable to pay, that is why we hold him liable for a guilt-offering for the final oath, since he can still retract and admit his liability and incur an obligation to pay. Consequently, the fact that he took another false oath constitutes an additional false denial of his monetary liability.

אלא אי אמרת כי אתו עדים פטור, מי איכא מידי דאילו אתו סהדי ומסהדי ביה ⁠– פטור, ואנן ניקו ניחייביה קרבן אשבועה הואיל ויכול לחזור ולהודות?! השתא מיהת לא אודי!

But if you say, as Rav did, that even when witnesses come he is exempt from paying, then the Mishnah’s ruling is difficult, as is there any similar case where if witnesses come and testify with regard to it, he would be exempt, and yet we would stand and obligate him to bring a guilt-offering for a later oath, for no reason other than since he can still retract and admit his liability? As of now, in any event, he has not admitted to any liability and has no extant debt, and any further oaths that he takes are not denials of monetary liability. It follows, then, that Rava’s explanation of Rav’s opinion cannot be undermined by Rav Hamnuna’s challenge.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן: הטוען טענת גנב בפקדון ⁠– משלם תשלומי כפל. טבח ומכר ⁠– משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה.

§ The Talmud cites another ruling concerning the topic of a bailee who claims that a deposit in his possession was stolen. R' Ḥiyya bar Abba says that R' Yoḥanan says: One who falsely states the claim, with regard to a deposit, that a thief stole it, and it becomes clear that he stole it himself, pays double payment. If he slaughtered or sold it, he must pay fourfold or fivefold payment.