With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". its own officers, agents and employees in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Id. at 972. The First, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits have all ruled similarly. See United States v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 20 F.3d 974, 978-79 (9th Cir.1994) (noting that the in-tracorporate conspiracy doctrine “has never been applied to criminal cases” and holding that “a corporation may be liable under § 371 for conspiracies entered into by its agents and employees”); United States v. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d 232, 236 (6th Cir.1990) (noting that “ ‘in the criminal context a corporation may be convicted of conspiring with its officers’ ”) (quoting United States v. S & Vee Cartage Co., 704 F.2d 914, 920 (6th Cir.1983)); United States v. Hugh Chalmers Chevrolet-Toyota, Inc., 800 F.2d 737, 738 (8th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Peters, 732 F.2d 1004,

A: recognizing that agents of a corporation may be held criminally responsible for crimes committed in the name of the corporation
B: holding that a corporation may be responsible when two or more high ranking or authoritative agents engage in a criminal conspiracy on its behalf
C: holding that a fiduciary corporation was a purchaser within the meaning of  12a2 and was entitled to bring suit on its own behalf or on behalf of its clients
D: holding that a corporation is held responsible for acts not within the agents corporate powers strictly construed but which the agent has assumed to perform for the corporation when employing the corporate powers actually authorized and in such eases there need be no written authority under seal or vote of the corporation in order to constitute the agency or to authorize the act
B.