Yes, coke tulip. A civil case is always easier for the complainant, for that reason. It's far easier to prove. The existence of a civil court judgment on the same question would be very unusual because the civil litigant would usually know that the criminal trial was pending. Therefore they would hold fire. If the other party was convicted, the civil trial would be instantly won; they'd plead the criminal conviction as more than adequate proof, it being decided to a far higher standard and there could be no realistic defence.
If there were a judgment for the complainant before the criminal trial, it would have little or no relevance save that evidence given in it by a witness could be used in cross-examination of that witness in the criminal trial. Otherwise, the finding of the single judge would not prove much, the standard being so low, and the judgment might well not be referred to at all, as being more prejudicial than probative, given the above.
The key question is always whether the person is worth suing. There's no point in getting judgment and costs against someone who has no means to pay. It may be that these women have still got some of the property but it is unlikely to be anywhere near enough to satisfy the claim, in terms of monetary loss sustained by the claimant. It would make no financial sense to get the judgment.