Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
support for exempting restitution orders from discharge” without the aid of federalism concerns because § 523(a)(7) “does not mention restitution, and it operates only if the penalty is ‘for the benefit of a governmental unit’ — a condition not easy to satis fy when the governmental body is collecting for private creditors.” Towers, 162 F.3d at 954; see also Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 419 n. 4, 110 S.Ct. 1979, 109 L.Ed.2d 408 (1990) (stating the goal of the VWPA is “compensating victims”). The Court held that the context in which the word “ ‘benefit’ appears — ‘payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit’ — implies that the ‘benefit’ in question is the benefit of the money that is ‘payable to’ the governmental unit.” Id. at 956. But see Vetter, 895 F.2d at 459 ; Zajder v. Hills Dep’t Store, 154 B.R. 885
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding without comment that kelly applies to restitution paid to a victim bank
B. holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not
C. holding restitution paid to a local department store is not dischargeable pursuant to kelly
D. recognizing that the test adopted in kelly applies to rulings on evidence
E. holding that debtor not bank paid the propertytax redemption amount even though debtor paid this amount using proceeds of loan from the bank
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.