In State v. Adams, 189 Ariz. 235, 238, 941 P.2d 908, 911 (App. 1997), the defendant and some accomplices cashed forged checks at three different bank branches. Although the defendant was acquitted of two forgery counts relating to checks cashed at two of the banks, the trial court ordered restitution in the amount of $ 550, the amount lost by those two banks. Id. The defendant challenged the restitution award "because he was acquitted of the charges relating to the bank's monetary loss." Id. at 238, 941 P.2d at 911. Rejecting that claim, the court in Adams noted that the defendant had been convicted of fraudulent schemes and artifices, that he "had accomplices, and that the bank suffered a $ 550 economic loss from their scheme." Id. at 239, 941 P.2d at 912. In State v. Adams, the trial court had ordered a defendant convicted of fraudulent schemes to pay $ 550.00 in restitution to a bank. The defendant asserted on appeal that he should not be required to pay restitution to the bank since he had been acquitted of the forgery charges underlying the bank's monetary loss. The reviewing court disagreed, reasoning that it was the defendant's fraudulent scheme which had caused the bank's monetary loss. The court explained that if only the three forgery counts had been at issue, the defendant's "argument might have more weight." Id. at 911. However, the defendant had been convicted of fraudulent schemes, and the damage caused to the bank was a result of his scheme. Id. at 912. The Adams court concluded that "the trial court's restitution order therefore was reasonably related to both Appellant's conviction and the bank's loss." Id.