With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". proceeds recovered if an “alternate action” is pursued. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 7 — 804(f)(2). III. Discussion There is no dispute that, the State and the City did not intervene in Khura-na’s original action or otherwise convert it to a civil enforcement action. Nevertheless, Khurana moves for a relator’s share, arguing that the DPA and SAIC Settlement constitute an “alternate civil remedy” ( o. 8:09-CR-203-T-27EAJ, 2011 WL 4431157, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2011) (same); United States v. Lustman, Criminal No. 05-40082-GPM, 2006 WL 1207145, at *3 (S.D. Ill. May 4, 2006) (“Surely Congress would have explicitly specified criminal prosecutions as an ‘alternate remedy* if it intended the result urged here.”), with United States v. Bisig, 2005 WL 3532554, at *3-5 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 21, 2005) (<HOLDING>). However, even if the DPA and SAIC Settlement

A: holding that a criminal acquittal does not have collateral estoppel effect on a later civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same conduct
B: holding that a criminal prosecution and criminal forfeiture proceeding constituted an alternate remedy and permitting award to relator
C: holding that an individual charged with criminal contempt is entitled to the full procedural protections afforded the defendant in any other criminal proceeding
D: recognizing criminal forfeiture as an aspect of punishment
B.