Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a third party. As noted, there is no identifiable third party in this case. The transfers are thus properly viewed as either benefiting the Fund or benefiting Bear Stearns. In either case, reliance by Bear Stearns on the mere conduit concept is unavailing. More importantly, once the funds were deposited, and as long as short positions were open, Bear Stearns did not have to respond to directions from the Fund. Indeed, so long as there were open short positions, Bear Stearns was not required to return the money to the Fund and was also able to initiate affirmative measures with respect to the funds. Thus, Bear Stearns’s position is simply not parallel to the traditional bank cases. See Malloy v. Citizens Bank of Sapulpa (In re First Security Mortgage Co.), 33 F.3d 42, 43 (10th Cir.1994) ; see also In re Chase & Sanborn, 848 F.2d at
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a party to be an initial transferee because she was given legal title to the funds
B. holding that theft by taking conviction was supported by evidence of unlawful taking rather than unlawful appropriation of funds where defendant who was given an electronic banking card encoded with the account number of another customer withdrew funds from bank account knowing that she was obtaining funds which did not belong to her and which she had no right to receive
C. holding that bank was not an initial transferee where transferor exercised complete discretion regarding deposits to and disbursements from the account and he was entitled to possession of all account funds upon demand
D. holding that language in a merrill lynch customer account agreement that the plaintiff signed upon opening the first account  providing for arbitration of any controversy  arising out of its business  applied to the disputed second account even though the plaintiff did not sign a separate customer account agreement for the second account
E. holding that where bank account titled in the names of two married persons a presumption arises that both hold the funds in the account as a tenancy by the entirety
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.