With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Michael and Alyssa caused Traína Enterprise, Inc., to mail a check in the amount of $1,080 made out to Michael Giacobbe to Finish Line Too, which check was thereafter deposited in nts’ fraudulent activity caused NatWest to mail Bay Bootery “monthly statements” which contained credits for checks that belong to the Body Shop Partnership. Assuming this to be true, as the Court must at this stage in the proceedings, Bay Bootery’s monthly bank statements are not mailed in furtherance of the alleged fraudulent scheme and they are not incidental to an essential element of that scheme. Indeed, each allegedly fraudulent transaction had already concluded by the time the monthly statement was issued. Accordingly, those monthly statements will not support the plaintiffs mail fraud claim. See id. (<HOLDING>); see also In re Gas Reclamation, Inc.

A: recognizing that a mailing must be sufficiently related to the fraudulent scheme to support a charge of mail fraud
B: holding direct misrepresentations were not required for mail fraud conviction
C: holding that the first element of mail fraud  knowing participation in a scheme to defraud  can extend beyond the specific mailing and that the loss calculation for a mail fraud conviction may include any loss from the fraudulent scheme that the mailing furthered
D: recognizing that where the looting is complete before the mailing is made a claim for mail fraud will not lie
D.