76 CASSELL ET AL. [Vol. 104 invokes the CVRA’s definition of crime “victim,” its legislative intent, and its structure, a closer reading of each demonstrates little support for the notion that crime victims must await the formal filing of charges before accruing CVRA rights. A. OLC’S MISREADING OF THE CVRA’S DEFINITION OF “VICTIM” OLC’s lead argument is that the CVRA’s definition of “victim” presupposes that criminal charges have been formally filed.8* The CVRA defines a “victim” who is protected as “a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense.”** Focusing on the word “offense,” OLC concedes that it does not “conclusively resolve” the question of when rights attach. Nevertheless, OLC claims that the word “naturally suggests that a person’s status as a ‘crime victim’ can only be determined after there has been a formal decision to charge a defendant with a particular Federal offense.”*’ OLC goes on to elaborate: Under this reading, the earliest that a “crime victim” under the Act could be identified would be upon the filing of a criminal complaint—that is, at the earliest point at which there is a sworn written statement of probable cause to believe that a particular defendant committed an identified Federal offense and hence the first point at which it is possible with any certainty to identify a “crime victim” directly and proximately harmed by the commission of that offense.*° OLC is disingenuous in asserting that the “first point” at which a person has been harmed by a federal crime arises only after a criminal complaint has been filed. The Department routinely makes such determinations at earlier points in criminal cases, such as when it sends a “target letter” to a defense attorney during a grand jury investigation.*’ Indeed, OLC remarkably ignores the fact that the Department is directly required to identify victims of a crime before the filing of a criminal complaint, both by statute and through internal