Bava Kamma 71A

אפילו הכי כיון דקא מקני ליה בהכי ⁠– הויא מכירה.

and even so, since the thief transfers ownership to the purchaser in this manner, it is considered a valid sale, and he is required to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.

גנב וטבח ביום הכפורים וכו׳. אמרי: אמאי? נהי דקטלא ליכא, מלקות מיהא איכא ⁠– וקיימא לן דאינו לוקה ומשלם!

§ The Mishnah teaches: If one stole an animal and slaughtered it on Yom Kippur he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. The rabbis say, questioning this ruling: Why is he liable to pay it? Although there is no penalty of execution for slaughtering on Yom Kippur, nevertheless there is the penalty of lashes; and we maintain that one is not sentenced to be flogged and obligated to pay for the same act.

אמרי: הא מני ⁠– רבי מאיר היא, דאמר: לוקה ומשלם.

The rabbis say in response: In accordance with whose opinion is this Mishnah taught? It is taught in accordance with the opinion of R' Meir, who says: One is sentenced to be flogged and obligated to pay for the same action.

אי רבי מאיר, אפילו טבח בשבת! וכי תימא: לוקה ומשלם אית ליה, מת ומשלם לית ליה;

The Talmud asks: If the Mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of R' Meir, then even if he slaughtered the animal on Shabbat, which is a capital offense, he should be obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, whereas the Mishnah (74b) states that in this case he is exempt. And if you would say that R' Meir holds that one is sentenced to be flogged and obligated to pay for the same act, but he does not hold that one is sentenced to the death penalty and obligated to pay for the same act, this is incorrect.

ולא?! והתניא: גנב וטבח בשבת; גנב וטבח לעבודה זרה; גנב שור הנסקל וטבחו ⁠– משלם ארבעה וחמשה, דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים פוטרין!

And is it correct to say that R' Meir does not maintain that one can be sentenced to the death penalty and to pay for the same act? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If one stole an animal and slaughtered it on Shabbat, or if he stole an animal and slaughtered it for idol worship, or if he stole an ox that is sentenced to be stoned, from which it is prohibited to derive any benefit, and he slaughtered it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment; this is the statement of R' Meir. And the Rabbis exempt him from this payment. Apparently R' Meir maintains that one can be held liable for monetary payment and for capital punishment for the same act, e.g., slaughtering on Shabbat or slaughtering for idol worship.