Good article, but I think that these questions deserve some further analysis:

Even if they [victims and perpetrators] were still living and could be located, what is to be done if the stolen capital has already changed hands? What if the current possessor has no knowledge of the expropriation? Would it be right to deprive him of both that which he gave up for it AND that which he received in order to make the victim whole?

Even if the stolen capital has changed hands, the perpetrator could still pay restitution to the victim. But consider that A stole something unique from you, for example a very original painting, and then sold it to B. Should A pay you off with money, while B keeps the painting, or A pays B with money, while you keep the painting?
I think that the second option is fair. You and B are both victims of A's theft or fraud, but you are the rightful owner of the painting, so B should be paid off with money.