the defendant’s criminal conduct, as from fraud or embezzlement, See, e.g., Ratliff v. United States, 999 F.2d 1023, 1027 (6th Cir.1993) (collecting cases); United States v. Hand, 863 F.2d 1100, 1103 (3d Cir.1988) (collecting cases). This principle has been applied, and properly so, to cases involving food stamp fraud. See, e.g., United States v. Dudley, 739 F.2d 175, 178 (4th Cir.1984). On the other hand, the federal courts are consentient to the effect that the government is not a “victim” for purposes of VWPA (and may not be awarded restitution) to the extent that it incurs costs in the clandestine provocation of a crime that, if carried to fruition under ordinary circumstances, would not directly harm the government. See, e.g., Gall v. United States, 21 F.3d 107, 111 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Daddato, 996 F.2d 903, 905
holding that the cost of capital equipment is not recoverable under the terms of the miller act holding that drug buy money advanced by the government is not recoverable under the vwpa holding that attorneys fees and costs spent by an insurance company to defend against civil suit filed by defendant are not recoverable under the vwpa holding that money used by undercover government agent to purchase false identification documents is not recoverable under the vwpa holding that lost profits are not recoverable under the terms of the miller act