The Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the trial court’s order that appellant pay direct victim restitution must be stricken. There was insufficient evidence that the Employment Development Department (EDD) was a direct victim of appellant’s offense of making a false statement to obtain unemployment benefits, as EDD disqualified appellant’s claim and he did not receive any money from EDD for it. Furthermore, appellant was not convicted of conspiracy with either of his co-defendants who received payments from EDD. Appellant could therefore not be held jointly and severally liable for victim restitution compensating EDD for losses incurred as a result of his co-defendants’ claim. The Court of Appeal found remand was inappropriate because investigative or other costs associated with EDD’s disqualification of appellant’s EDD claim do not qualify for restitution for a direct economic loss under Penal Code section 1202.4.