or other charges caused by the improper debiting of funds — I do not believe it can fairly be said that the account holders have suffered any actual pecuniary harm from the temporary deprivation of access to their funds. Rather, they have sustained an inconvenience and a headache, which I do not dispute can be of serious proportions. To the extent the account holders’ inconvenience can be monetized in the form of lost vacation days, phone calls and letters to the bank and credit reporting agencies, unreimbursed expenses for replacement checks and so on, then I agree that the account holders have sustained a reasonably foreseeable, actual pecuniary loss that is sufficient to count them as “victims” under the Guidelines. See United States v. Abiodun, 536 F.3d 162, 168-69 (2d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). This is what I understand to be the holding
holding that reimbursed account holders may be victims under  2b11 based on loss of time that can be measured in monetary terms holding that the loss of money from a bank account does not constitute irreparable harm because that loss can be compensat ed by money damages holding that mental capacity may be considered on issue of victims intent holding that an insured mortgagees loss under a title insurance policy cannot be measured until the note has not been repaid and the security for the mortgage is shown to be inadequate holding that the loss of trade secrets cannot be measured in money damages