For a transaction to create wealth the two parties must collectively be more wealthy than they were before. If they are collectively as wealthy then no wealth has been created. Some criminal activities destroy wealth in aggregate even though money or goods changed hands in a way that superficially resembles a trade.

I suspect though that the distribution of money itself between people can increase net wealth, because it shifts how that money will then be used economically in useful ways. The same $1 in the hands of a minimum wage worker might have different economic value than if it was in the hands of a millionaire because how it is likely to be used in the economy is different. I don't know which is better though, will the minimum wage worker pay for services that are more beneficial, or will the millionaire invest it in a company that creates jobs and provides services? We need both things to happen though to some degree, so maybe the answer shifts with the economic cycles.

If I buy a coffee and drink it have I just decreased net wealth by destroying valuable coffee, or have I increased it by transferring the money to somewhere it can do more useful economic work in downstream transactions?