I’m not saying I necessarily agree with it, but I believe the intention is basically as a deterrent. If you cause $5000 worth of “damages” to someone and they have to sue and win, and the most that can happen is $5000 of repayment, you’ve basically created an incentive to try to get away with stuff - the worst case scenario would be paying what you owed anyway. If you might have to pay $175k for making 5k, it might make you think twice about taking that chance.
Now the real conversation is actually about whether those kinds of negative incentives are actually related to the decision to commit a crime. I don’t have any solid evidence but my gut tells me no - people who are going to commit a crime usually assume they are going to get away with it, don’t factor potential outcomes into their risk assessment, or don’t have any risk assessment at all.
He is actually a pretty amazing host - better than Alex was in some ways. Extremely personable with the contestants, funny, offers context on some clues because he knows so much, and you can tell the contestants have genuine respect for him because he’s been there and succeeded better than anyone.