My reference to a shortcut was that it might result in the victim collecting an award that they otherwise would be waiting a long time to collect. The sentence imposed on the offender can include restitution. It's not awarded in the majority of cases, but it's awarded in some cases for what's referred to as reasonably ascertainable losses. Often when it's awarded, the victim has some trouble collecting it. Many victims have said that it's onerous because then it's their responsibility to collect the restitution. However, for some, it alleviates the need to sue the offender in civil court for the same damages. It can take a while to collect the restitution order. It requires that they file the order in the civil court. Then they take steps to execute it. Often they would give a direction to a sheriff, for example, to seize an asset or bank account. They would do that, and there would be nothing there. Then they would still have the outstanding order and they would have to issue what used to be called writs of FiFa—I don't know if that's still the current term. They have to give that direction again at a future time to see if the offender has any assets, and aim to collect again.
If the offender isn't voluntarily paying, it can be a long process. As noted by other witnesses, they are often not people of means, so it's not easy for them to make these payments. Sometimes payments are made over years or months where a payment scheme is worked out. Therefore, if you had an award made to an offender and that money could be provided to the victim in a lump sum to satisfy that amount, it would save them waiting for those payments to trickle in or other efforts to be made on the part of the victim to collect. They wouldn't have to do so.