With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". case rests squarely within the group of cases that have prosecuted similar private sector frauds under federal law, and appellants’ conduct is precisely the type of misuse of the mails and wires the statutes were meant to address. See, e.g., United States v. Von Barta, 635 F.2d 999, 1005 (2d Cir.1980). In a similar vein, appellants argue that the conduct at issue here was not illegal under New York state law and, therefore, could not form the basis of federal charges. We note that both the trial and appellate courts that were involved in the state court proceedings initially brought against the appellants and others based on the same scheme found that the type of conduct at issue here did violate state law. See New York v. Wolf, 284 A.D.2d 102, 726 N.Y.S.2d 83, 84 (N.Y.App.Div.2001) (<HOLDING>), leave to appeal granted, 96 N.Y.2d 926, 732

A: holding that similar conduct by codefendant of grae and rybicki satisfied the elements of commercial bribery  and scheme to defraud
B: holding that the statute requires actual intent to hinder delay or defraud creditors or the trustee constructive intent to defraud does not suffice
C: holding that a nineyear scheme by two defendants to defraud a single plaintiff of various real estate holdings constituted a rico pattern
D: holding that the in connection with requirement of rule 10b5 was satisfied where investors were injured as investors through respondents deceptions and the scheme to defraud and the sale of securities coineided
A.