His conduct -- as so many of you have pointed out, speeding *per se* doesn't *have to* be all that bad; there's lots of even worse things to do in traffic -- is worth only what to you or me would be a $500 (proctonumerology) fine. For instance, if there had actually *been* children crossing the street as he sped by and was caught, if the police had actually seen him narrowly escape slaughtering someone's kid, then I assume he'd have been charged with more than speeding; "Reckless Driving" or whatever it may be called.
Wouldn't you say that having your license taken away would be a lot worse than paying the $500 fine? OK, so this guy has a lot more money than we do -- but only one driving license, just like everybody else. So the legal presumption, as I understand it, is that he values mere cash a lot less than the rest of us do, but his license just as highly as we do. (Seems reasonable, no?) And therefore, since he didn't actually kill anybody or anything, the harsher[*] punishment of removing his license would be no more called-for in his case than it would if it had been you or me that had been speeding.
Oh, and lest you try to confuse the issue by conflating Finland with some "state" (You mean, as in "part of America"?!? Sounds more like some fucking third-world hell-hole!) again: I don't think Finland has any such cap on valuing a life. (Sure, our courts don't make people multi-billionaires as compensation, either... But that's just common sense.) But actually, that's neither here nor there: "Tort reform" has nothing to do with it; this wasn't *compensation* (to anyone in particular), it was a *fine* (payable to the state), "pour encourager les autres" (and the guy in question himself, too, in the future).
[*]: Follows logically from the above. Now, maybe the law doesn't have the valuation differential for cash-vs-license at all points along the taxable-income scale perfectly correct, so maybe he *would* prefer giving up driving to paying the fine... But, hey, so might you or I with our much lower fines! It's the *principle* we're talking about, and AFAICS that holds.