Do you do it?
Yes.
The title here is misleading. "Punishing future crimes" isn't necessarily implied by the wallet theft. Not actively supporting the personal security and property rights of the to be villain is all that is required. If Hitler is considered morally irrelevant it is just a matter of whether having the money is better than not having it.
Do you do it?
Yes.
In a previous discussion you unconvincingly stated that killing a villain would be sad, but now the answer "yes" seems to require that the villain is morally irrelevant. Is there other reason for your "yes" answer that doesn't rely on Hitler's terminal moral irrelevance? (It's unclear how your second paragraph relates to the answer you've given.)
Here's an edited version of a puzzle from the book "Chuck Klosterman four" by Chuck Klosterman.
When should you punish someone for a crime they will commit in the future? Discuss.