A restitution order is intended to compensate the victim for its actual loss and is not intended to provide the victim with a windfall. (Millard, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 28; In re Anthony M. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1017-1018 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 734.) While the court need not order restitution in the precise amount of loss, it "must use a rational method that could reasonably be said to make the victim whole, and may not make an order which is arbitrary or capricious." (People v. Thygesen (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 988, 992) See also: In re Brian S. (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 523, 527 "court may use any rational method of fixing the amount of restitution which is reasonably calculated to make the victim whole and which is consistent with the purpose of rehabilitation"; People v. Ortiz (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 791, 800 "While the amount of restitution cannot be arbitrary or capricious, 'there is no requirement the restitution order be limited to the exact amount of the loss in which the defendant is actually found culpable, nor is there any requirement the order reflect the amount of damages that might be recoverable in a civil action.' "; People v. Akins (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1382 same.) In People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 652 (Giordano), the California Supreme Court summarized the origin of the state's restitution scheme: "In 1982, California voters passed Proposition 8, also known as The Victims' Bill of Rights. ... Proposition 8 established the right of crime victims to receive restitution directly 'from the persons convicted of the crimes for losses they suffer.' The initiative added article I, section 28, subdivision (b) to the California Constitution: 'It is the unequivocal intention of the People of the State of California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes for losses they suffer. Restitution shall be ordered from the convicted persons in every case, regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss, unless compelling and extraordinary reasons exist to the contrary.' " The Giordano court further explained that "California Constitution, article I, section 28, subdivision (b), which is not self-executing, directed the Legislature to adopt implementing legislation. " (Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 654.) Section 1202.4 was the legislative response. In its current incarnation, it provides that "a victim of crime who incurs any economic loss as a result of the commission of a crime shall receive restitution directly from any defendant convicted of that crime." ( 1202.4, subd. (a)(1).) Subdivision (f) of section 1202.4 states that, subject to certain exceptions not applicable here, "in every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant's conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court. ... The court shall order full restitution unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and states them on the record." Restitution "shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant's criminal conduct ... ." ( 1202.4, subd. (f)(3).) Subdivision (f)(3)(A) through (K) identifies, without limitation, examples of economic losses that are recoverable by the victim, including losses to property. A defendant is entitled to a restitution hearing to "dispute the determination of the amount of restitution." ( 1202.4, subd. (f)(1).) As recently explained: "At a victim restitution hearing, a prima facie case for restitution is made by the People based in part on a victim's testimony on, or other claim or statement of, the amount of his or her economic loss. 'Once the victim has i.e., the People have made a prima facie showing of his or her loss, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the amount of the loss is other than that claimed by the victim.' " (People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26 (Millard); see also Giordano, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 664 "The burden is on the party seeking restitution to provide an adequate factual basis for the claim.".) "The California Constitution gives crime victims a right to restitution, and consequently, requires a court to order a convicted wrongdoer to pay restitution in every case in which a crime victim suffers a loss. (Cal. Const., art. I, 28, subd. (b)(13)(B).) To implement this requirement, section 1202.4, subdivision (f), generally provides that 'in every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant's conduct, the court shall require that the defendant make restitution to the victim or victims in an amount established by court order, based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim or victims or any other showing to the court.'" (People v. Sy (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 44, 62.) "The restitution amount 'shall be of a dollar amount that is sufficient to fully reimburse the victim or victims for every determined economic loss incurred as the result of the defendant's criminal conduct.' ( 1202.4, subd. (f)(3).) 'The defendant has the right to a hearing before a judge to dispute the determination of the amount of restitution.' ( 1202.4, subd. (f)(1).) "'At a victim restitution hearing, a prima facie case for restitution is made by the People based in part on a victim's testimony on, or other claim or statement of, the amount of his or her economic loss. . "Once the victim has i.e., the People have made a prima facie showing of his or her loss, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the amount of the loss is other than that claimed by the victim. ." . "'"The standard of review of a restitution order is abuse of discretion. 'A victim's restitution right is to be broadly and liberally construed.' . '"Where there is a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court, no abuse of discretion will be found by the reviewing court."' ." . However, a restitution order "resting upon a '"demonstrable error of law"' constitutes an abuse of the court's discretion. ." . "In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a factual finding, the '"power of the appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted," to support the trial court's findings.' . Further, the standard of proof at a restitution hearing is by a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. . 'If the circumstances reasonably justify the trial court's findings,' the judgment may not be overturned when the circumstances might also reasonably support a contrary finding. . We do not reweigh or reinterpret the evidence; rather, we determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the inference drawn by the trier of fact."'" (People v. Sy, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 63.)