In United States v. Pu, 814 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2016) (No. 15-1180), the defendant was convicted of secretly downloading and using proprietary high-speed trading software from two successive employers. There was no evidence that the defendant profited in any way from the theft; he used the software for personal trading activities on which he ended up suffering losses. He pled guilty and was sentenced to 36 months’ incarceration plus payment of restitution in the amount of $759,649.55, representing the amount one of the employers incurred for engaging attorneys and forensic analysts to investigate the theft. Relying on its earlier opinion in U.S. v. Hosking, 567 F.3d 329, 331 (7th Cir. 2009), the Seventh Circuit found the amount incurred to investigate the misconduct to be a proper subject for restitution. The defendant argued that the restitution award was nonetheless improper because it lacked sufficient evidentiary support. The award was based on a letter by an in-house lawyer for the employer stating that the $759,649.55 represented $151,500.50 for counsel to conduct an internal investigation, amounting to 323.7 hours billed by nine lawyers, paralegals and legal assistants with billable rates ranging from $115.50 to $630 per hour, plus $608,149.05 paid to the forensic analysis firm, representing 1818.8 hours of work by 16 analysts with rates ranging from $171 to $567 per hour. The Court of Appeals agreed that this letter was insufficient to support the restitution award. The court noted that the letter did not explain how any attorney’s or analyst’s time was spent, and did not demonstrate that the hours spent were reasonable. The court found that the government must “provide an explanation, supported by evidence, of how each professional’s time was spent investigating the date breach,” and must support the reasonableness of the time spent. Accordingly, the court vacated the restitution order.