Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Subsection (a)(1) provides for forfeiture of “any interest” that the defendant “acquired or maintained in violation of section 1962.” 18 U.S.C. § 1963(a)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, under (a)(1) an interest is subject to forfeiture only if and to the extent that it was acquired or maintained in violation of § 1962. Forfeiture under (a)(1) is not limited to a defendant’s interest in the RICO enterprise. It also includes a defendant’s interest in the proceeds of the RICO violation. Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 21-22, 104 S.Ct. 296, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983). Moreover, a “but for” test is used to determine whether the government has proven the required nexus between the interest in question and the RICO violation. United States v. Angiulo, 897 F.2d 1169, 1213 (1st Cir.1990) . In this case, the only evidence of any
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in a mixed motive retaliation case the but for test applies to pretext but further holding that the burden shifts after employee has shown pretext under the but for test to the employer to show that absent retaliation the plaintiff would have lost his job anyway
B. holding that but for test applies under a1 and that forfeiture is limited to property interests that would not have been acquired or maintained but for violation of  1962
C. holding lease of property was a commercial transaction where the property was for commercial ranching but a residence was maintained on the property
D. holding admissible certain evidence which would not have been obtained but for violations of constitutional requirements
E. holding that injury to business or property was not limited to commercial interests
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.