Mandatory sentence reductions for milestones like 50%, 75%, 100% of ordered restitution/forfeiture would almost certainly incentivize repayment. Right now the federal government collects 7% of what they are owned from criminal defendants, see https://sci-hub.se/https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/d... (page 2). It has been proven that white collar criminals are typically the more calculating type and that they weigh the risks of getting caught so if there is a good reason to preserve at least some of the money they fraudulently obtain instead of spending it all on luxury goods they will likely do so. It's very difficult to argue that the current system is effective when there are people who caused bank failures through million dollar frauds getting 7-8 years in prison and $100 a month restitution payment plans. Right now your "intended loss" (not actual loss) is all that matters for the purpose of sentencing guidelines calculation - for instance if you submit a fraudulent loan application for $50k and don't get it (or get it but pay it back) you're just as bad as the guy who got it and spent it at all.
Any time I've ever heard fines used in the context of a business, it's never paying back the money. It's paying back a fraction of the money. And usually it's to the government, not to the people harmed.
What were you thinking off? Surely no corporal punishment?
House arrest won't be on the table either ("what good does that do?"). Being barred from starting a company? I can see people arguing against that ("but it'll allow her to pay back the money sooner") for the same reasons they're arguing against punishment.