full amount of $45,000 was recoverable. Even if that amount were found to be the value of the property on either the date of loss or sentencing, the value of the portion of the property recovered by Workman must be determined and deducted from that amount. More importantly, we disagree with the thrust of the government’s argument, namely, that any sums Workman expended to recover the property are recoverable as long as the total is less than the value of the property when Paul first acquired it. That is not in keeping with the plain language of the statute. We hold that an award of restitution under the VWPA cannot include consequential damages such as attorney’s and investigators’ fees expended to recover the property. See United States v. Arvanitis, 902 F.2d 489, 497 (7th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Barany, 884 F.2d 1255, 1261
holding that restitution for consequential damages such as legal fees expended to investigate a fraudulent insurance claim are unavailable under the vwpa holding that restitution under the vwpa was more akin to compensation for actual loss than a criminal penalty that may not bear interest holding that consequential damages are not to be considered holding that provision barring recovery of consequential damages did not necessarily bar all loss of use damages but damages for loss of use of money were consequential holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not