With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". RICO claims, which seek treble damages for racketeering acts. All of the Defendants here are potentially liable, yet aside from Pablo, no other Defendant has even a fraction of his assets under attachment in Switzerland.- Moreover, even with respect to Pablo’s liability, the Plaintiff seeks to establish liability for a debt, not compel the relinquishment of specific, identifiable property in Switzerland. Indeed, although the Complaint asserts that stolen funds passed through Swiss accounts over which Pablo had control, it does not allege that such funds presently are in those same accounts. Thus, no identifiable bar precludes this Court from rendering appropriate relief to Ms. Madanes while still respecting the integrity of the Swiss action. See Central States, 600 F.2d at 675 n. 7 (<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. $3,000,000 Obligation,

A: holding that where prior state court had in rem jurisdiction district court could maintain in personam jurisdiction and simply deny requests for conflicting in rem relief because district court is fully capable of preventing inappropriate conversion of the suit to a proceeding truly in rem
B: holding that in a quasi in rem action a district court does not have jurisdiction over the res when that property is not physically within the same state as the court
C: holding that the basis of in rem jurisdiction is the presence of the subject property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum state
D: holding the claimant does not consent to personal jurisdiction by appearing in in rem action
A.