I use quotes around paradox because this is certainly not a mathematical paradox but only used in common usage. The situation goes as follows
A tourist $\beta$ visits hotel $\nabla$ in a poverty-ridden town. He wants to first check the hotel rooms. The manager agrees to give him a tour of the rooms but first demands a security deposit of $n$ units. The tourist deposits the same and then goes to see the rooms with a bellboy. Meanwhile, the manager realizes that he owed $n$ units to the chef as salary. The $n$ units were given to the chef. The chef owed $n$ units to a doctor as fees so he paid those $n$ units to the doctor. The doctor owed $n$ units to a nurse as salary and paid those to the nurse. The nurse owed $n$ units to $\nabla$ to pay for staying there. $\beta$ didn't like the hotel and took his deposit back. In this way, all the debt was cleared without any actual net money flow.
This isn't a paradox because they could have just made settlements with each other and come back to the same person. So no one actually owed anyone else. But we make some changes to this:
A tourist $\beta$ ... paid those to the nurse. The nurse was going to the hotel but crashed into $\beta$'s car. The damage compensation paid by nurse to $\beta$ was exactly $n$ units. $\beta$ liked the hotel and stayed there.
So everybody's debt was cleared, but there still wasn't any net cash flow. Because the crash wasn't pre-determined they couldn't have just all made settlements with each other. Do we have a paradox now?
Nah, all the debts are not cleared in your second scenario. The nurse still owes the hotel $n$ units