"No part of the payment of any fine levied for an offence of this kind should be accepted until complete restitution is first made to the victim. Because a criminal should never be able to pay a fine with his victim's money, and what is owed for vandalism should be treated exactly like stolen property."
What? In what sense is this lenient? He has to do both. If he goes bankrupt because of it, somebody doesn't get the full due, and you can just decide which one later. But, quite clearly stated in the article, he has to pay compo to the company.