Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
with the doctors, precisely what the incentives were, when they were provided, why they were provided, and why they were illegal. Mastej’s complaint provides specific details about the “on-call” neurosurgeon scheme the Defendants utilized to induce six doctors to refer Medicare patients for treatment at the Defendants’ hospital. It offers specific information about the golf-trip benefit provided to four additional doctors in 2008. Mastej’s complaint identifies the names of all ten doctors who allegedly referred patients after having received these financial benefits from the Defendants. Mastej’s allegations regarding the financial incentives, which he claims violated the Stark and Anti-kickback statutes, meet Rule 9(b)’s required level of specificity. See Hopper, 588 F.3d at 1324 . But healthcare providers do not violate the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that specific details about time place and substance of the fraud satisfy rule 9b
B. holding plaintiffs speculations did not satisfy rule 9b requirements
C. holding that charge of money laundering need not satisfy rule 9b
D. holding a complaint failed to satisfy rule 9b where the allegations were lacking in detail
E. holding a broad claim with no factual support was insufficient to satisfy rule 9b
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.