Post History

This question presumes are rather economic view of redemption. If the number of good deeds exceeds the number of bad deeds,the characters is redeemed. If their assets exceed the debts, they are redeemed. 

But that is not really the way redemption works. Redemption is a direction of the heart. A change in the direction of the heart generally needs to be proved by some action, but it can be a very small action at the very end of life. There may be no opportunity for the character to pay all their debts or to right all their wrongs. But that is not necessary. All that is necessary is to show that the direction of their heart has changed such that they would have done those things if they had the chance, and, perhaps more importantly, would never have committed their crimes if the direction of their heart had been different. 

The other element that I suspect is necessary for a convincing redemption story is that it should come as a shift in the balance, the blossoming of a value that the character has always held. Thus, in so many absent parent stories, the redemption comes when the good value of love of family finally becomes stronger than the bad value of love of worldly success and parent and child are reunited. The damage done by the years of neglect cannot be undone or made up for, but the parent's change of heart redeems them nonetheless. (And usually the child's is redeemed as well by putting their love of family above their years of resentment. This is a popular trope because it is a two-for-one redemption value pack for the the author.)

The good does not have to exceed the bad. All that is required for redemption is a change of direction from bad to good, even if it occurs on the death bed.