Section (b)(4) of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act ("MVRA") requires a criminal defendant convicted of a wide variety of offenses to:

reimburse the victim for lost income and necessary child care, transportation, and other expenses incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense or attendance at proceedings related to the offense.
18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4). In a question left open by Lagos v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 1684, 1690 (2018), does Section (b)(4) limit restitution for "necessary ... other expenses" to out-of-pocket expenses similar to "lost income ... child care, [and] transportation" under the principle of noscitur a sociis, or is there no such limitation if the expenses are incurred during participation in the criminal case?

The Second and Fifth Circuits are in conflict over this question. In United States v. Koutsostamatis, 956 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit, relying on the discussion of noscitur a sociis in Lagos, and narrowly construing the MVRA, held that corporate investigative expenses unlike those enumerated in the MVRA are not subject to restitution. Declining to follow Koutsostamatis, the Second Circuit below treated Lagos' discussion of noscitur a sociis as nonbinding dictum and awarded corporate attorneys' fees under pre-Lagos circuit precedent counseling broad relief under the MVRA. Contrary to the approach of the First Circuit, the Second Circuit also awarded as "necessary" restitution fees for voluntary assistance to prosecutors to prepare witnesses for trial. See In re Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., 981 F.3d 32, 37, 38-39 (1st Cir. 2020).

Whether Section (b)(4) of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act limits restitution for 'necessary ... other expenses' to out-of-pocket expenses similar to 'lost income ... child care, [and] transportation' under the principle of noscitur a sociis, or if there is no such limitation if the expenses are incurred during participation in the criminal case