With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". restitutionary provisions of the Victim and Witness Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663-3664. This proposition presents a pure question of statutory interpretation and, as such, invites de novo review. See, e.g., Gifford, 17 F.3d at 472; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 978 F.2d 750, 757 (1st Cir.1992). A. Conceptualizing the Problem. This ease falls into a grey area that separates two established legal principles. On one hand, although once problematic, see infra p. 35, it is by now settled that a government entity (local, state, or federal) may be a “victim” for purposes of the VWPA (and may be awarded restitution) when it has passively suffered harm resulting directly fro h Cir.1993) (similar) (dictum); United States v. Salcedo-Lopez, 907 F.2d 97, 98 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Finley, 783 F.Supp. 1123,

A: holding that drug buy money advanced by the government is not recoverable under the vwpa
B: holding that attorneys fees and costs spent by an insurance company to defend against civil suit filed by defendant are not recoverable under the vwpa
C: holding that money used by undercover government agent to purchase false identification documents is not recoverable under the vwpa
D: holding attorneys fees not generally recoverable unless party prevails under cause of action for which attorneys fees are recoverable and damages are recovered
C.