Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
between the funds seized and the illegal activity was that the tainted funds had previously passed through the same interbank account. II At the time of the seizure, the civil forfeiture statute provided that the United States could acquire through forfeiture “[a]ny property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of ... section 1956 [money laundering] ... or any property traceable to such property.” 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). The Government concedes that the funds in the Banamex account were not “involved in” or “traceable to” the money laundering enterprise and, thus, were not subject to forfeiture under the statute as it stood at the time of the seizure. See United States v. $448,342.85, 969 F.2d 474, 476-77 (7th Cir.1992) . Instead, the Government argues that the funds
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that  proceeds as that term is used in the money laundering statute means gross receipts from illegal activity rather than profits
B. holding that the court of appeals erred in declining to consider whether the arrest was illegal and whether the consent was tainted by the potentially illegal police activity
C. holding that illegal gambling activity may be enjoined even though these operations are also subject to criminal prosecution
D. holding that countersurveillance driving is a fact indicative of illegal activity
E. holding that money seized from a bank account must be traceable to illegal activity in order to be subject to forfeiture even if account previously contained proceeds of illegal activity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.