Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
liability under New Jersey’s local law for conduct that would not be illegal under New York’s law. The New York Legislature made its enactment narrower than federal RICO, instead of broader as did our Legislature. See Ball, supra, 268 N.J.Super. at 107, 632 A.2d 1222. New York also precluded private litigants from pursuing cases that prosecutors with limited resources might decline, as opposed to New Jersey’s decision to encourage private litigants with the prospect of treble damages and counsel fee awards. Cf. Lindsey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 34 F.Supp.2d 636, 646 (W.D. Tenn. 1999) (observing that Congress included a private cause of action in federal RICO “[t]o facilitate the enforcement of its provisions”); Metro. Int'l, Inc. v. Alco Standard Corp., 657 F.Supp. 627, 634 (M.D. Pa. 1986) . As in P.V., supra, 197 N.J. at 148-49, 962
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a plaintiff may receive both treble damages under rico and state law punitive damages for the same course of conduct
B. recognizing that to facilitate and strengthen enforcement congress created rico with a private right of action for treble damages
C. recognizing private right of action
D. holding that a private right of action exists
E. holding that united states cannot sue for treble damages under rico reasoning that it could not do so under similar language of clayton act on which rico was modelled
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.