Brynpoeth has asked for a response to the philosophical aspect of the question.
The first problem is defining "wrong". It's not an absolute, its seems to me. Certainly the laws of the country aren't absolute "rights" . it's been noted by others, upthread, that individuals make their own decisions about the morality of any particular law, and a subsequent willingness to break it.
The question can only be answered, in philosophical terms, if we define "wrong'; that everybody involved accepts this definition; and the application is consistent. These conditions rarely co-exist.
In such a scenario, it's possible to imagine that state A is changed to state B by someone committing a "wrong", and B is then changed to state C by another "wrong" . However, the overall change from A to C is a "right".
For example, I might define the act of entering someone else's property uninvited and the act of stealing someone else's property as two distinct "wrongs", irrespective of any legal definition. If a thief were to steal someone's bike and stash it in their garage, it would be a "wrong". If someone knew about this, entered the garage, and removed the stolen bike to a place of safety, it would also be a "wrong". But, the overall result (bike being restored to owner) would be a "right".
BUT.......and this is a big BUT........the definitions are purely arbitrary on my part. They may have some credence with some other people, and they may have some correlation to our (British) legal framework, but they are essentially arbitrary. It's beyond credibility that everyone will agree with me. For example, it could be argued that it's not "wrong" to go into someone's garage to retrieve a stolen bike.
So, I'd say there can only be an answer, in philosophical terms, if the three conditions (definition: acceptance by all; consistency) are met. In real terms, any answer will be always up for debate. (Hence the colour, length and entertainment of many of the threads in the forum