(the limit of that insurer’s bond obligation for employee dishonesty and audit expenses). Thus, the NCUA stated that it thought the amount of funds misappropriated by Kinney to be “a lot higher” than its loss claim “because of the 33 member share accounts that were understated by $1,308,987.” App’x 62. In the absence of cooperation from these members, some of whom were relatives or close Mends of the defendant who believed she would “take care of everything for them,” the NCUA’s tracing abilities were limited by the very nature of Kinney’s embezzlement scheme. Id. A defendant’s restitution obligation is not limited to the amount that she has realized from her crime but, rather, extends to the full loss sustained by victims. See United States v. Zangari, 677 F.3d 86, 92 (2d Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Boccagna, 450 F.3d 107, 115
holding that a district court cannot order restitution in amounts that will result in the payment to the victim of an amount greater than the victims loss holding that measure of restitution is victims loss not defendants gain holding that the amount of restitution is limited to the victims actual losses  holding under the policy language that diminution of market value is not a cause of loss but a measure of a loss caused by something else holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not