Are you implying that the more difficult path is always the higher, better, or "morally superior" one?
That is an obvious error. Suffering is not a good in itself. Otherwise:
I agree. We follow our reason and not our emotions. His decision was emotionally moving, and it took a great deal of virtue, subjectively speaking, to take that action (it speaks well to his heroic virtue), but when analyzed objectively, I don't see how that was the correct decision. It would be one thing if he didn't have a family that he was bound to support in justice (along with the Communists' unjust possession and withholding of the money). Commies were clearly not paying the laborer for his wages, a sin crying out to heaven for vengeance, and they were using their money to fund oppression of people. In fact, to bring down a Commie government, it would not be immoral for a hacker to go into their bank accounts and drain them. Now, the hacker would have no right to keep the money, but would be totally justified in draining the account. In this case, the gentleman WOULD be entitled to the money, since he was being defrauded of being able to support his family. I can see no way to slice this issue intellectually that would make what he did the objectively correct decision.
So you give the Commies their money back so they can, what?, use it to oppress even more people. Hey, let me buy some extra torture equipment for the jail.
Here's another example. I can barely support my family and from day to day they're at risk of going hungry. I get some odd job and make a little money. On my way home, I see a beggar and am moved with pity and give him some or all of the money. While it was "generous" in one sense, he was actually defrauding his own family of what he owed them in justice. That action was actually IMMORAL. Sure, the guy was moved with generosity, etc. If he just had to support himself, that would be great. But since he owes that money in justice to his family, he's basically committing theft from his family to do this "noble deed".