A defendant convicted of concealing stolen property may be subject to victim restitution for the items he possessed and the economic loss to the victim suffered as a result of his conduct. There was no evidence that Holmberg committed burglaries of businesses where computers were stolen. He did obtain the computers on the day they were stolen. One was used to access the internet and they were sold on Craigslist after drives were replaced. The victim claimed losses due to business disruption and lost time while replacing the computers and reconfiguring the new computers. The trial court must use a rational method that could reasonably be said to make the victim whole and a review of such an order is under a standard of abuse of discretion. There was no abuse of discretion where the damages were not based on the burglary or theft but on the victim’s economic loss as a result of defendant’s concealing the property. The award was reduced for the value of two cables and a scanner because there was never any evidence that those items, taken in the burglary, passed to the defendant’s possession.