A federal district court, faced with conflicting Circuit Court precedents, determined in United States v. Nosal, No. CR-08-0237 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2014), that a corporate victim was entitled to restitution from a former employee for costs incurred to investigate the employee’s conduct and cooperate with the prosecution.   The former employee was convicted of violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Economic Espionage Act in connection with  the unauthorized downloading and duplicating of trade secrets.  The employer sought restitution under the Mandatory Victim’s Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), which has been held to require restitution for losses for which the defendant’s conduct was an “actual and proximate cause.”  The court found that $27,400 in costs incurred to internally investigate the defendant’s conduct qualified for restitution, following the Ninth Circuit’s adoption of a “broad view” of the restitution authorization, United States v. Gordon, 393 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. Amato, 540 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2008) (affirming restitution award for internal investigation costs).  The court recognized that the D.C. Circuit had ruled to the contrary in United States v. Papagno, 639 F.3d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (internal investigation costs not required or requested by criminal investigators or prosecutors were not recoverable).  The court also awarded as restitution the value of the company employees’ time and the fees spent on outside counsel in aid of the government’s investigation and prosecution of the defense.