Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
original; citation and internal quotation marks omitted). All reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial must be drawn in favor of the Government. Id. First, Wagner argues that the Government failed to prove the existence of a RICO enterprise because, he maintains, it presented no evidence of an enterprise distinct from the alleged predicate acts, and, further, the predicate acts alleged were nothing more than a discontinuous series of individual crimes. Neither of these arguments has merit. Contrary to Wagner’s first argument, neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has required that the Government’s proof of the alleged enterprise be distinct from the racketeering conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981) ; United States v. Indelicato, 865 F.2d 1370,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that while both the enterprise and pattern of racketeering elements must each be proven the proof used to establish these separate elements may in particular cases coalesce
B. holding that  111 establishes three separate crimes each consisting of the elements of the preceding category of crime but adding an element or elements that must be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt resulting in an increased penalty
C. holding elements of rescission are 1
D. holding that medical expenses must be proven to be both reasonable and necessary
E. holding that the creditor must prove the elements of actual fraud
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.