There seems to be some confusion about what an indirect object is.
The OP has probably learned that in a sentence like Thomas gave Sue a book, Sue is the indirect object. So far so good. The sentence is equivalent to Thomas gave a book to Sue, so the OP goes on to assume (and a good English instructor will easily make this mistake) that to Sue is also an indirect object. Here is the wrong turn. Sue is the recipient in both cases, but recipient is a meaning category, while direct object is a grammatical category.
If two clauses have the same or very similar meanings, it doesn't mean that all of the corresponding arguments are of the same grammatical category (think of "argument" as a participant in an event; or if you are a computer programmer, think of verbs as functions and other parts of the clause as arguments).
Languages have hundreds or thousands of constructions, each with particular grammatical properties. The constructions have partially overlapping meaning properties. This permits nuance of expression. Generally you will have to recognize a grammatical structure separate from the meaning. Coincidence in meaning should not be taken to imply coincidence in grammatical structure.
For reference, I've quoted relevant parts of Huddleston & Pullum's (2002) treatment (Chapter 4, §§4, 4.3) below. You can get the student edition of the book more cheaply (the passage suggests that the answer to the OP's clause is yes, but only in a "noncanonical" clause).
Of the two types of object, the direct object (Od) occurs in both monotransitive and ditransitive clauses, whereas the indirect object (Oi) occurs in canonical clauses only in ditransitives.
At the general level, the direct object may be defined as a
grammatically distinct element of clause structure which in canonical
agent--patient clauses expresses the patient role. Direct object
arguments are associated with a wide range of semantic roles, but in
other canonical clauses than those expressing agent--patient
situations, the direct object has the same grammatical properties as
the NP expressing the patient in agent--patient clauses.
The general definition of indirect object is that it is a distinct
element of clause structure characteristically associated with the
semantic role of recipient. Again this is not the only role we find
(though the range is much narrower than with the direct object), but
indirect objects behave grammatically like the NP expressing the
recipient with verbs like give, lend, offer, sell.
The terms direct and indirect are based on the idea that in
ditransitive clauses the Od argument is more directly affected or
involved in the process than the Oi argument. In I gave Kim the key,
for example, it is the key that is actually transferred, while Kim is
involved only as an endpoint in the transfer. Characteristically the
Od in ditransitives is obligatory while the Oi is omissible, as in He
lent (them) his car, She offered (us) $400 for it, and it is
plausible to see this is as reflecting a more direct involvement, a
greater centrality on the part of the Od argument.
Most ditransitive clauses have alternants with a single object and a PP complement with to or for as head...
(a.i) I sent Sue a copy. ~ (b.i) I sent a copy to Sue.
(a.ii) I ordered Sue a copy. ~ (b.ii) I ordered a copy for Sue.
...it is only the [a] examples that we analyse as ditransitive, as double-object constructions. In [b] the PP to/for Sue is not an indirect object, not an object at all, having none of the properties outlined in §4.1 above, and the NP Sue is of course an oblique, hence not a possible object of the verb.
To explain better the remark about "canonical" clauses: Huddleston & Pullum are saying that for the most part you don't speak of an "indirect object" unless the sentence has two non-subject arguments. That's because English is not very permissive about omitting arguments. If a verb sense requires certain arguments, they normally cannot be omitted entirely. But suppose you have a verb which is normally ditransitive, and it has a sense requiring only one argument, marked like an indirect object (a prepositional phrase)? In that case the sense would normally be classified as extended intransitive rather than ditransitive. (e.g., get in The cat got under the table). So you are kind of blocked from finding such examples.