Where appellant staged induced traffic accidents in order to receive claims from insurance companies, the insurance companies were the direct victims of his fraud and therefore appropriate recipients of restitution orders. Moloy contended on appeal that the insured motorists were the direct victims of his offenses, and that the insurance companies merely settled claims as they were required to do by contract. Therefore, only the victims’ out-of-pocket expenses should have been compensated by restitution. The appellate court here disagreed. The objective undertaken by Moloy was to victimize insurance companies by making them settle false claims, and the insurance companies were the victims of the false claims. The insured motorists were victims of the accidents, not the fraudulent claims. The financial loss was born entirely by the insurance companies, and they were therefore direct victims. The restitution orders were, therefore, entirely proper and supported by the record. Also, payment of restitution to the insurance companies was most consistent with the rehabilitative benefits of restitution.