States v. Moede, 48 F.3d 238, 241-42 (7th Cir.1995). Next, Helfand challenges the district court’s finding that the fraud amounted to a $21,000 loss, which formed the basis of the restitution order and a 4-level upward adjustment to his offense level under the guidelines. Helfand points out that Flagstar purchased the McGill property for the full amount then due on the mortgage at the sheriffs foreclosure sale instead of letting it go to the next highest bidder (he does not disclose what that bid would have been). Thus, he contends that any subsequent loss Flagstar suffered was its own doing and his fraud caused no loss. But a fraud victim’s effort to mitigate its losses does not lessen the wrongdoer’s liability. United States v. Vitek Supply Corp., 144 F.3d 476, 488-89 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Rather, the touchstone of a fraud loss
holding that delay caused by or consented to by a defendant is not unreasonable holding that costs of measures to rectify harm caused by defendant properly considered when calculating fraud loss holding that an award of restitution is only for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction 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 an intended loss  cannot exceed the loss a defendant could have occasioned if his or her fraud had been entirely successful