Unless the fines are 2-3 times the amount stolen. That would cut into the legitimate portion of their income and likely be a strong deterrent.
So there are then two things you have to guess at. First, how often they get caught (which is difficult, but not impossible to estimate) and second, how far below zero the expected financial payoff must be to change the behavior.
You also have to figure out what happens when they don't have the money (or the money is well-hidden). Do they just go into some kind of negotiated payment schedule like people who lose lawsuits? That might have no impact at all since their illegal earnings are likely to be hidden from authorities anyway (or can be if needed).
This is why I favor prison, because a prison sentence is much harder to "cheat" or nullify. No one lives forever, so prison is like taking a small chunk of a precious commodity away from someone. Additionally, if you are a big earner, prison is actually worse for you in some ways because you generally lose your income while incarcerated. This means that even very rich people or people who hide their wealth from the authorities can be punished effectively with prison time.
The administrative penalties could simply be scaled to be much scarier without needing to go that far.
Personal financial liability (piercing the corporate veil) with limited negotiation of terms (and since personal credit is usually factored into business credit, that bankruptcy will greatly impact your ability to do business), administrative dissolution of business, very very large fines, and so on.
If you actually want to deter this kind of crime you need to fine the people who are caught the amount of money they stole multiplied by the number of people who don't get caught. So you should probably be thinking 20 or 30 times the amount stolen.
Of course such large fines might take entire industries down with them so you're unlikely to ever see corporate crime punished as excessively as it should be.