United States v. George Koutsostamatis, 956 F.3d 301

Background

Defendant George Koutsostamatis, a BP employee, stole trading and employee-identifying data and emailed BP posing as a hacker, demanding payment in bitcoin. He pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud.
Within hours BP notified the FBI; at the FBI’s request BP’s internal digital-security team and outside contractors assisted the government investigation.
BP incurred $552,651 in investigative expenses (internal digital-security team, forensic vendors, server auditing, audio review) that aided identification of Koutsostamatis.
At sentencing the district court ordered Koutsostamatis to pay $552,651 restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4)).
Koutsostamatis appealed, arguing (1) BP did not “participate” in the government investigation and (2) BP’s forensic and IT expenses are not the kind of “other expenses” covered by § 3663A(b)(4).
The Fifth Circuit held BP’s assistance constituted participation but vacated the restitution order, ruling those corporate forensic costs are not covered by § 3663A(b)(4), and remanded for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Koutsostamatis' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether BP’s assistance amounted to “participation in the investigation” under § 3663A(b)(4)	BP’s work was a private investigation, not government “participation.”	FBI directed BP to assist; BP’s work was part of the government investigation.	Participation requirement met; BP acted at FBI’s request.
Whether BP’s forensic and IT costs are “other expenses” under § 3663A(b)(4)	“Other expenses” limited to personal costs similar to lost income, child care, transportation; corporate forensic costs excluded.	“Other necessary expenses” incurred during participation should include BP’s investigative costs.	Not covered: apply noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis to limit “other expenses” to items similar to the enumerated examples.
Whether the MVRA’s remedial purpose supports a broader reading of “other expenses”	Text and canons control; broad purpose cannot override statutory text.	MVRA’s purpose to make victims whole favors restitution for these costs.	Purpose cannot overcome the textual limits; broad remedial purpose does not justify expanding the statute beyond its text.
Effect of Lagos and pre-Lagos precedent on scope of § 3663A(b)(4)	Lagos narrows § 3663A(b)(4) to government investigations and expenses like travel/lost income, supporting exclusion of corporate forensic costs.	Pre-Lagos decisions allowed broader restitution for private-investigation–type expenses.	Follow Lagos: statute addresses government investigations and expenses typical of witness/employee participation; pre-Lagos broad readings do not control.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Papagno, 639 F.3d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (discusses statutory authorization for federal restitution)
Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018) (construes § 3663A(b)(4) to cover government investigations and expenses like lost income, travel)
United States v. Mathew, 916 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2019) (noting de novo review of restitution legality)
Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) (ejusdem generis and list-context canons applied to statutory lists)
Third Nat’l Bank in Nashville v. Impac Ltd., Inc., 432 U.S. 312 (1977) (words grouped in a list should be given related meaning)
Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014) (distinguishing criminal restitution from tort remedies)