Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
federal officials. Under Alabama forfeiture law, cash is considered fungible and may be replaced by a monetary instrument such as a cashier’s check. Section 15-5-63, Ala.Code 1975, a part of the Alabama Comprehensive Criminal Proceeds Forfeiture Act, § 15-5-60 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, provides, in part: “(5)a. In cases where the property to be forfeited is cash, monetary instruments in bearer form, funds deposited in an account in a financial institution, or other like fungible property, it shall not be necessary for the state to identify the specific property, other than as U.S. currency, cash, monetary instruments in bearer form, or as funds deposited in an account in a financial institution, involved in the of urrency and $20.00 in Canadian Currency, 103 F.3d 902, 905 (9th Cir.1996) . Although “[i]t behooves authorities to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the cashiers check was an appropriate fungible surrogate for the seized currency
B. holding that drawer of check is liable only for the amount originally stated by drawer on check even though the drawers negligence facilitated the wrongful alteration of the amount on the check and the payment of a larger amount to the payee
C. holding that investigation was insufficient prior to prosecution for forgery of check
D. holding that a payment made by certified check rather than the customary regular check was outside the ordinary course of dealings between the parties
E. holding that principal who caused debtor to issue cashiers check to satisfy personal obligation was not initial transferee
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.