Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declined to construe a federal criminal statute by looking to the elements of a predicate criminal offense, choosing instead to focus on the defendant's underlying conduct supporting the criminal conviction. Despite the prevalence of elements-based approaches in immigration and in cases involving the Armed Career Criminal Act, the court charted a different path in construing "offense against property" under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (the MVRA). In United States v. Razzouk, 976 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2020), Circuit Judges John M. Walker Jr. and Susan L. Carney and District Judge John G. Koeltl, sitting by designation, unanimously held that the categorical approach should not apply to federal restitution orders and that district courts should look to the facts and circumstances underlying a conviction in deciding whether to impose a restitution remedy for crimes against property. In so holding, the Second Circuit joined the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits. See United States v. Ritchie, 858 F.3d 201, 210 (4th Cir. 2017); United States v. Collins, 854 F.3d 1324, 1334 (11th Cir. 2017).