Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(1941) (internal citations omitted). “The parties agree that the plaintiffs are citizens of North Carolina and defendants Whitehead and Aden are citizens of Virginia. The parties also agree that TRI was incorporated in Virginia and TRINC was incorporated in North Carolina.” (Appellant’s Br. at 11-12.) For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(c)(1). The district court held that TRINC’s North Carolina citizenship did not destroy complete diversity because TRINC was a “sham” defendant under the doctrine of fraudulent joinder. See Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97, 42 S.Ct. 35, 66 L.Ed. 144 (1921) . As Hugger and Settle “acknowledge that there
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the right of removal cannot be defeated by a fraudulent joinder of a resident defendant having no real connection with the controversy
B. holding the connection is an element
C. holding that the basis for joinder of crimes must be alleged in the charging instrument by alleging the basis for joinder in the language of the joinder statute or by alleging facts sufficient to establish compliance with the joinder statute
D. holding that trespass requires only proof of interference with right of possession of real property
E. holding that forfeiture of real property may be adjudicated before the seizure occurs because real property cannot abscond
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.