Following conviction for commercial burglary, which involved the transfer and subsequent withdrawal of funds from Dillon’s account into his own, appellant was ordered to pay $10,000 restitution to the bank pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4. On appeal, appellant contended that the trial court erred in ordering restitution to an entity which was not a “direct victim” of the offense, and that restitution was only owed to Dillon. The trial court determined that the bank was the victim because the bank had paid Dillon back, and because appellant had pleaded guilty to burglarizing the bank. The appellate court affirmed the restitution order. Substantial evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that the bank suffered an economic loss. The bank was a direct victim under section 1202.4 because it did not act as an indemnitor, it was the object of the crime, and because appellant pleaded guilty to commercial burglary of the bank.