They aren't superficial. You aren't wrong in that assessment. But, you are ignoring how law works. Here's a little bit about that:
Criminal law is all about intent.
So, here's an example of the non superficial elements here:
Say, one gets the "gimme your coin" order, says no, goes to jail.
While in jail, the coins move, OK?
Person in jail cries, "Uncle!" and gives up the wallet.
Authorities find it empty.
Who had what intent?
If the intent is to circumvent the order? That's an additional crime period. It may involve others too, who may also be committing crimes. The intent will link it all back together somehow, and that's what the law will resolve. Crucially, the person supposed to give up coin won't end up with coin, because they are ordered to give it up.
If the intent was not to circumvent the order? Someone, somewhere did something with intent, and that intent will boil down to theft from law enforcement, who is entitled to that coin, due to the order. That person would now be a criminal, and on it goes. The person ordered to give up coin still won't end up with it, and someone else is now being hunted down for having stolen coins from law enforcement, who will do whatever it takes to end up with the coins so ordered to them.
Put in very simple terms, understanding intent and law can all look like this:
Say we find a dead person. Is that a crime?
If anyone else, other than the dead person, anywhere, intended that dead person end up dead, yes! It's murder. Could be for hire, vengeful, whatever.
Maybe someone was stupid. That's a different intent, and a different crime. Maybe it's manslaughter of some kind. Could be reckless, for example, or negligent.
If there was no intent associated with the dead person then there is no crime, and we've just, sadly, got a dead person.
Maybe the person stepped in front of a bus. That's suicide.
In all cases, there is a dead person.
Intent determines whether there are also criminals, what their crime is, and all that other stuff.
Make sense?